Slashdot Mirror
35,765 Internet Votes Cast by Arizona Democrats
tgw writes, "According to the stats page of Election.com, 35,765 people cast votes remotely in what the Arizona Democrats believe to be the first legally binding public election in the world conducted via the Internet.
This number is almost triple the 12,800 people which voted in Arizona's 1996 Democratic Primary. For those unable to view the stats page a screenshot of it is available here. 'Remote Voting' in the Arizona Democratic Primary was allowed via any Internet-connected computer from Tuesday (3/7) through midnight on Friday (3/10). The election concludes on Saturday (3/11) when people can cast votes only from the 124 designated polling places - using either a computer or paper ballot to cast their vote."
Two problems:
deletion of cookies
non-static IP's
result: multiple votes for a single person.
35765 not 31337.
How the hell is this Redundant??
God, slashdot moderators are fucked up.
I wish you slashdot kiddies would grow up and realize that online voting is nothing but a childish distraction from important electoral issues. Online voting saves you a 3-block walk or drive to the polling place. So what? An infinitely more important issue is what kind of electoral system we use. For example, a system called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) allows each voter to rank the candidates according to their preference. This means that you can vote for the candidates you really prefer without ever "wasting" your vote. IRV eliminates the "lesser of two evils" problem and gives "minor" parties a fair chance. Check it out at http://www.fairvote.org. And quit wasting your time with worthless fads such as "online voting"! Russ P.
It's clearly a scheme to get more of the poor and incapable to vote. Remember all the whining in the SC primary? Precisely. Guess who they have in mind. No doubt about it, they're practically holding these people's hands while they type, and certainly telling them who to vote for. These "voters" don't know or care who's running, they can't understand the issues, and they probably have no grasp of what "voting" even means. 94% are functionally illiterate.
These are the people the Democrats want to decide our future. "The last shall be first" the man said, but is this what he meant by it? I doubt that very much.
"From Genesis to Revelation/The next generation/hear me . .
I agree with you. It seems to me that making voting so easy and convenient does pull in more voters, but it will be the voters who can't be bothered to know the issues, understand the candidates, or think past the cliches (Democrats are socialists who want to take our guns; Republicans hate the poor and want to cut taxes for big corporations).
If these new voters were interested in understanding these things before, then they would have been responsible enough to take the 3 minutes to vote. Anyone who couldn't take two minutes at Walmart or the Motor Vehicle Department and register to vote shouldn't be voting, period.
I can see this leading to even more attack ads on TV, more soundbites, less talk about real issues. I would also guess that the most left wing candidate will now win in every college town, where before the students were too lazy to go vote.
I wonder how many husbands voted for their wives?
Historically, wives have simply voted for whoever their husbands told them to. When the issue of votes for women was under debate, most responsible observers stated that this is what would happen. Naturally, political correctness drowned them out, and we had to find it out the hard way. There hasn't been a fair or honest election in 75 years in this country, and this is the reason.
Have we had enough yet? Are we ready yet to face facts? Do we need another three-quarters of a century of undeniable proof before we shut the feminists up and restore our political system to some semblance of normality?! How the hell do you think Clinton got elected? It used to be that responsible candidates campaigned on their merits, and the best man won (excepting 1860 IMHO, but it was a fair election so I cannot complain). No longer. No, we don't do it that way any more. It's a "beauty contest" now.
So much for the USA.
Ummm, wasn't this a Democratic party election?
Not just white males, WASP males! White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males. We don't want any fucking Irish Catholics, do we? Would you like Ted Kennedy for President? Klinton, at least, did not *kill* the fucking bitch, although the case can be made that she deserved it.
Is that so? Why did you lose the war in Vietnam? Americans can't shoot. It took four trained police officers 41 shots to get one nigger down. Shame on you, America.
There's only one American marksman I admire. Lee Harvey Oswald. He took his target down with a head shot from 200 yards. Yet what happened to him? Cruelly murdered by a wimpy faggot with a "saturday night special".
America is doomed if you don't have more men like Oswald. But Oswald wasn't trained in America. He was in the U.S. Marines, I'll grant you that, but didn't learn real shooting there. He was trained in the Soviet Union where he lived for a while. Look at what Soviet trained snipers did in Sarajevo, if you have any doubts about which country has the best marksmen.
The second ammendment just says the people who participate in government-organized militias may carry their guns home so they may be able to train shooting in their farms.
The turnout rate for the 21+ crowd hasn't changed at all this century. The voting rates plummetted when 18 year olds were allowed to vote.
The 18 to 20 group doesn't vote. Guys just wanna get laid, and the girls want to know if they can go shopping.
Who did I vote for at 18? RMN (You expected an 18 year old to act intelligently?). Okay, I made up for it by voting for the only bottle deposit law in the country that works.
Apparently neurosoft.org does.
Voting this way is not catering to the "lazy" voters out there, as was suggested. Rather, it is giving the opportunity for everyone to take part in their government without ever having to leave their desks.
Wow, you are a Democrat!
Historically, the Democratic Party has always found strong support with poor people, Negroes, Hispanics, other minorities, etc. However, these groups are also among those who are least likely to own a computer and to have Internet access, as the article you posted showed. Obviously, then, this means that if Internet-based voting becomes more commonplace, the political party that will benefit the most will be the one whose members are middle-to-upper class, well-educated, and computer users. This is the Republican party. Internet voting, therefore, will disproportionately favor Republicans, and this is a Good Thing (TM) given the way that the Democrats seem to want to take this country. It wouldn't surprise me if they officially changed their name to the Socialist Party at their next convention.
.. that's the beauty of it!
Yes, I'm aware that there are exceptions to every rule. There are left-leaning middle-to-upper class computer owners; all you have to do is read Slashdot comments to see that. But I do not believe that they are statistically indicative of the population as a whole. Another "wild card" that gets thrown into the mix is homosexuals. Several studies have shown that these people have higher-then-average incomes, and almost all of them are computer-literate. (I won't go into what sort of reflection that is on the decency of our society.) Homosexuals, as a group, typically vote overwhelmingly Democratic (no surprise there.) However, I don't feel that they are that major of a factor, because their numbers just aren't large enough, Kinsey's ludicrous "one in ten" number notwithstanding.
All in all, I'm in favor of Internet voting as long as it can be done properly and fairly. I think we need to definitely require that Internet votes be cast with your own computer (i.e., you cannot go to a cybercafe and use a machine there.) This would further help the Republicans because it would prevent poor people from using the Internet in an alternate manner, and force them to either vote conventionally or not vote at all. There are legitimate security reasons for why this restriction could be passed, though
those crack russian marksmen really cleaned up in Afghanistan, huh?
nationalism is almost as stupid as racism. both are irrational feelings of pride based on chance.
Better then 3rd shift clerks at 7-11.. POLYESTER.NET/POSTOFFICE is your cyber Head-Shop e-Card humor center!@
Much of the voting going on at all levels in this country is already rigged. Before anyone calls me paranoid or demands proof, let me say I'm not here to prove anything and much on the subject of vote fraud has been written by other researchers. Computerized voting simply tightens an already tight noose. Many county election officials don't tally up the vote; they simply defer to the media to announce who the winners are. The actual results aren't produced until much later, but by then it doesn't matter as the winners have already been placed into office. An honest voting system would have paper ballots that would be counted in open view for all to see. Yes, I know it's backward and cumbersome, but it would more honest than what we now have. In many places, trying to see how the votes are counted may land you in jail! Now why would that be? Hmmm... Come on folks, we know the mentality of our so called leaders, they are just a bunch of devious, power hungry SOBs. Their actions prove this over and over again. Would they really want more power to be given to the people? I think the answer to that is obvious. Computers in voting (as in much of the rest of our society) will be set up to provide a tighter feedback/control loop. Unfortunately, in my state they are setting up computerized voting. I think if one were to investigate this subject further, one will find it isn't what it is being made out to be. Oh well, that's enough for now.
I think the idea is that those guns are insurance against a tyrannical government. If Uncle Sam starts skimping on the lube on April 15 (nice metaphor from a friend of mine) or breaking up people's stump speeches, Jethro and Marsha (and like-minded people elsewhere) grab their shotguns, get together with plenty of buddies, and fix the system.
Trouble is, this was true of guns in 1780. 2000? The U.S. Army is huge, standing, well-organized, centrally controlled, and armed with all kinds of horrendous and advanced weapons civilians don't have access to. A citizens' revolt wouldn't last half a week. (I've even heard recruits are deliberately trained and posted far from home to harden their feelings if the event should ever come up.)
So this has become a fallacious argument against gun control. Marsha's shotgun doesn't make much difference now.
For the founders' intent to be reflected today, we'd have to have a militia-based army easily susceptible to local control, and thus to the public will. It's not clear to me that such an army could defend the country adequately in the age of nuclear deterrence and viral weapons, though. (Maybe it could! But how? And how to prevent abuses - the town sheriff in Milwaukee gets drunk, turns the key, and nukes Beijing. Ugh. I'm open to ideas here.)
35765 = (m-n)^(m * n) + n * (m * (m-n))^n - n
Where m is 5 and n is 3!
Coincidence? YES!
Its 3l347
"elite" i5 l4m3r sp34k f0r 31337 5p3ll1ng 3l1T3 w1Th l3TTer5 th4t r3s3mbl3 Th3 numb3r5
th3r3 15 Tr34tm3nT f0r H0m0ph0b35. g4y b0y5 h4v3 r1ght5 t00.
Thus saith Arctic Fox:
>> Why should some jack-hole negate my well researched, carefully determined vote by blindly pulling a lever? <<
This demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of randomness. If some jack-hole randomly pulls a lever, he will not cancel your vote. He will cancel the vote of some other jack-hole who also pulled a random level.
Now, if you're worried about some jack-hole pulling a lever impulsively because of some advertisement he saw, the campaign finance reform booth is over there.
(you're supposed to imagine, when I say "over there," that I'm pointing to a (fictional) booth of people supporting campaign finance reform, but I think you get the point.)
--
Fred
First off, sorry to any offended viewers for perpetuating an OT thread. I'm finding this discussion interesting.
I don't expect biological weapons would be used against a populace in revolt; they're too slow and indiscriminate. A nuke or two might be more likely, especially if a revolt is concentrated in only a few places, but these also would destroy infrastructure both sides would want to preserve. Chemical weapons lack all these disadvantages, and I expect they'd be used heavily and effectively.
The Army also has a greater variety of conventional weapons, better training, and most importantly better organization, intelligence, and logistics than a cobbled-together civilian militia could hope to match. Even without unconventional weapons, I predict these advantages would be decisive.
I admit this is an unknown quantity, and I can just guess at it; but in my opinion, the difference would only be symbolic, not practical. I think the armament currently in civilian hands here would be insufficient to prevent a crushing defeat.
Some other posters properly brought up the National Guard, the modern descendant of the colonial citizens' militia. I admit I've failed to consider them. If a revolt against a tyrannical government occurred, would the National Guard give it teeth? How well is it organized and armed? How is it controlled today? My impression has been that this happens at the state level, which could be a good sign in this case.
---
At this point, lest I be seen as advocating the violent overthrow of our current government, I should clarify my position. As far as I can see, the people of the U.S. are not currently subjected to nearly the kinds of indignities and tyrannies that might justify such a bloody and wasteful war. I'm addresing only the theoretical point raised by the founders (who did experience, and revolt against, tyranny in their own time): what if this situation did develop? What could be done? How can the public stay ready?
It's all bonds, too. That means, a decade or two down the line, the public coffers - your tax money and mine - have to pay back the wealthy investors who bought the bonds, with interest. Essentially, the public going into debt to private parties.
Although, with increasing investment and market participation, it's starting to be not just a few investors but many, including what's left of the middle class - so at least for the middle class, it's going into debt to themselves, so to speak. This actually fits the supposed purpose of bonds, investment of today's resources to (hopefully) bring a bigger payoff tomorrow - although some of these projects don't look like they'll bring much return. Rock art? Historical importance, I guess, but $2.1 billion?
The poor still lose out, of course. They can't buy the bonds, so they're just going deeper into hock, through their tax money and government.
This was also how the founders justified the Electoral College, instead of direct popular election for the president. The idea was to move the decision to a group of educated and informed people, themselves elected and therefore accountable to the public, to weed out the worst and strangest decisions. If I remember right, this was some kind of compromise between elitists and populists.
Delegate systems for nominating candidates seem intended to have a similar effect. (Whether they succeed or not is another question, as is whether other approaches might have better results.)
I would also make them first prove they could lift 40lbs. over their heads. I don't think anyone who hasn't taken the time out to develope their body at least to that very minimal point should be allowed to vote. Or even live. Jackass.
I'd like to know what measures are being taken to prevent fake votes. This is a tool that can work for democracy or against it. Leave it up to some 31337 script kiddie to make is counterproductive. Yeah, well...
Leave it to some short-sighted bureaucrat to put some "31337 script kiddie" in such a position in the first place.
Remember the rallying cry of the revolution? "Taxation without representation is tyranny." More generally, government rule without representation is tyranny. Our is a representative government because we believe that the governed have a right to say who will govern them.
So why do we believe that? "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." That is, a government which does not respect the will of its citizens is unjust. Fundamentally, every human being has a right to influence the government under which he lives. Yes, this includes even the stupid and the lazy.
So much for your theory that an armed population can resist a tyranny.
The Constitution doesn't make any distinction between people who salivate and plan for 4 years who they are going to vote for and what issues are important to them and the people that sit around all day jerking off and drinking Bud on welfare. A US citizen 18 years of age is eligible to vote.. it doesn't make any distinction as to whether they are non-lazy or informed about the issues. Hell, I voted for the first time this year in the primary and I'm 23. I just went to vote for McCain and ended up punching the other people up for office randomly since I had no idea who they were (well, not to mention 90% of the Republican offices only had one person running for it so it wasn't tough to decide ;-). But yes, I took the time to go vote but I would've rather done it online over lunch at work instead of having to drive back to my old elementary school where the voting was taking place for my area. I never voted before this because it was too much of a pain in the ass to go do it. McCain is the only reason I took the time off and went. That's exactly WHY there are only 1 or 2 people running for these dinky little offices.. no one bothers to go out and vote for them anyway unless there is something cool on the ballot. BTW: Bush and Gore can kiss my hairy balls. I hope they both die in plane crashes or get shot down by stray Russian Migs. They BOTH suck. WRITE IN MCCAIN EVERYONE!
The next logical step in your suggestion of eliminations is of course to disqualify the most dangerous persons in our society from voting: the tax cheaters. If you did not pay, you shall not vote. Why should society grant you a vote, if you did not pay your dues.
Once we are done with tax cheats, we shall move to eliminate other far more dangerous persons like These.
Hear hear!!
Maybe they should run a mile too!
I raise this point because of the recent case of a State Department program being writen by Russians. Additionally, Yahoo just ran an article about the Aum Shinri Kyo sect wrote some software for the Japanese police. Apparently, this allowed the sect to track some of police vehicles.
Who did the state of Arizona used to go over the code? Craw, sans cookie
The whole idea of secret voting (while you stand behind the curtain) is to make sure that your nobody is supervising what you vote: it makes no sense to pay 100 people to vote a certain way if you are not allowed to supervise them while they are inside the booth. Therefore, with electronic voting, I imagine, that during the next election I can sell my vote and the buyer will be able to check if I did vote as promised. Lots of other people could sell their votes as a group too, nobody can check that my vote was bought, if I needed the $10 dollars I could have sold it. Others might also sell them even cheaper.
Please, don't tell me I needed to run Linux. (I do, but my Linux box was down this week.) My point is simply that if I had problems under Win98 with the voting page's JAVA applet, (Using 2 different browsers) than there are probably more people who did, too. That makes it a poor implementation in my book.
Why aren't people discussing the how?
The College of Arts and Sciences at University of Rochester has been doing their student elections for at least two years online. Maybe it isn't cool enough tho' because they do it through the UNIX shell accounts every student is given. That takes care of the authentication well enough.
I'm sure they weren't the first either.
Blah, my 14-year-old car literally gasped, wheezed and died on Election Day. I did not get to the polling place.
The current system is biased against the car-less.
But a borgo-centric election backend? Election returns in PowerPoint-digested-to-HTML?
George Orwell is behind this, I tell ya!
Jesus H. Christ, the thing is based on NT.
The clue level is down there at the freezing point of Helium.
No way would I cast a binding vote on an NT shitbox. (yeah, it's secure)
Yes, more people vote if it takes less effort. No great shock there, but are the votes of those people that are not prepared to make any effort worth counting?
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
That doesn't sound like a very smart thing to do. Not to mention that it's not something the average Win98 user will think to do.
My friend and I have actually had several debates about the impact of these types of changes to the election process. Despite what many Americans believe the type of government that we have is not a Democracy it is a Representative Democracy. And given that fewer than 25% of potential voters vote in any given election or referendum then we really have a Representative Democracy controlled by a small minority of the population. Of the people that vote some vote because they enjoy participating in the process. Others, perhaps the majority tend to be people who has a specific interest is how a vote turns out. The level of participation is directly influenced by how a given vote will directly impact their lives, beliefs or livelihood.
The recent Presidential Primaries are a prime example. The level of turnout has been extraordinary. For the left there is the fear of a House, Senate and President all being controlled by Republicans. From the right there is the fear both of electing a candidate incapable of defeating Gore and of another four years of immoral Presidential antics
It all really started with the Motor Voter push. A process where someone can register to vote by simply filling in a little extra on the Driver's license renewal to be registered to vote. Before this the task or registering to vote was inconvenient. Often requiring the person to take time off from work to go register.
Republicans were afraid of the Motor Voter because it threatened to dramatically change the demographic of voters. Republicans tend to be Middle to upper income people with two ore more years of college. Democrats ten to be hourly workers with lower income and less education. The fear was that making the process more convenient would push the demographic further to the left. Fortunately for Republicans the actual act of voting was still inconvenient.
Online voting is the next obvious improvement to increasing voter participation. People could either go to the local library of log on from home to vote. The implications are obvious. Thus making the process even more convenient, will the demographic be pushed to the left as predicted? Even more importantly, do we want something more akin to a true Democracy where a majority of the population can conveniently participate?
The first question is really interesting. Though the results from Arizona won't be known for a few more days I'll go ahead and make some predictions. Despite the increased convenience, computers are still a relative luxury. Computers require a certain amount of education to understand and use. Despite the number of computers in use the number of users computer savvy enough to make it through the voting process is much smaller. Many users simply use their net connection to send and receive e-mail. AOL users will have to jump through several hoops and know what too look for to find the browser. It seems to boil down that any vote conducted on the web may actually skew to the right. Polls during the Clinton Impeachment seem to back this up. MSNBC polls often skewed so far to the right you would have thought Clinton would be standing on the corner with a little tin cup asking for donations. A further prediction is that Republican States will be the first to implement Online voting. Its a win-win scenario. They get a better Republican turnout and little fight from Democrats since they would look extremely hypocritical in light of how they beat Republicans over the head with Motor Voter.
The second question is a real head scratcher. On one hand you have the normal curve tendency. Online voters may have little impact on how votes turn out since simply scaling up the same general voting turnout may not change to actual vote results. On the other hand voting may tend to skew more and more to the right because the haves (wealthy, educated Republicans) will be more likely to vote than the have-nots. This imbalance in the power distribution will likely create interesting results.
Assuming the first scenario is true, and in the long run as computers become as inexpensive and accessible as toasters its is likely to become so, the next question is how votes change due to increased access to knowledge. This online format allows for more at-hand information about possible candidates as well as voting referendums. Since the wording of proposals will become more high profile, the mishmash of convoluted wording that passes for a proposal today will have to change. Having to vote yes to say no to a ballot will become an embarrassment for the people who write them. Voters will have access to actual voting statistics on candidates and much of the obfuscation and outright deceit in today's politics may not survive the bright light.
Last, what does this mean for the future of politics? It's not unforeseeable that sometime in the future the representative democracy may disappear. The hidden assumption is that we need this form of government because the sheer numbers of decisions involved and the amount of information needed to make these decisions are too time consuming for each individual voter. Representatives are elected to act as surrogates to make these decisions for us. In the future though this may not remain true. First, we all understand that many of the decisions currently made especially in the State and Federal government are made at the party level. Second, if even a steady 10% of voters can keep up with voting on these decisions online it may become feasible to get rid of most Representative functions. There will be the fear of knee-jerk politics, but that wouldn't really be much of a change anyhow.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Internet voting is great, but it will be a long, long time before every state institutes this, and even longer before you see it in a general election. Arizona is pretty much a conservative stronghold - this is the state of Goldwater, and now McCain, not to mention a Republican governor (Hull), and Republican majorities in both the State House and the State senate. Internet users tend to be white, affluent, and male. Republican voters tend to be white, affluent, and male. It doesn't take a genious to see what is going on here - Republicans in power in the Arizona state government saw this as a way to get more votes, and they went for it. People laud this as cutting edge and democratic, but I see it as the exact opposite: a byzantine regression back to the days of boss politics and smoke-filled rooms. Arizona is already the most gerrymandered state in the union, and I'm not suprised that they effectively went ahead and used the same tactics in cyberspace. Dare I say, 'egerrymandering'? :)
Republican stronghold states - most of the bible belt - will probably follow suit within a matter of years, but in states without a pronounced Republican majority this innovation is going to take a lot longer, at least until there is parity between minority and white Internet usage, not to mention between genders. This, also, will takes decades, perhaps.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Uncle Sam had nothing to do with it. The Democratic Party paid Election.com to provide online voting services.
I've been voting absentee ballot for years. This is no different.
Boss tells all employees to vote by absentee ballot. Boss tells all employees to vote from work. No diff.
The magic ballot number and the address can be tied together when the absentee ballots are mailed out. The PIN number and votes can be tied together. Net voting would be somewhat easier, but both are possible. I dare say the net voting tie would be easier to discover since it all happens in one place. Absentee ballot tieing could be easily limited to just a few, which would be harder to discover.
--
Infuriate left and right
Honor of the first internet election -- that too a significant election -- election for head of state goes to...Costa Rica I think the year was 1997-98 I could find one link link1 -ak
Just curious --
Was this via the web or using a proprietary telnet/tn3270/etc connection?
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
This may sound like a shameless plug but at least it's on topic ;-)
I am one of the programmers for The College of William and Mary's student community, The Student Information Network. We've been providing essential student services for over two years (log in as 'guest' and check it out), and we're entirely student run.
Which means, of course, when the time came to run the student elections online, everyone was worried that apathy and ballot stuffing would come to the fore. On February 29, 2000, the entire student body had the chance to vote from any web browser. Needless to say, we had a lot of sleepless nights ;-) but we managed to pull off a fair election.
The results were spectacular!
It may be noted humorously that, as befits most college elections, a lot of people ran for positions unopposed -- why fear ballot stuffing then
In conclusion, not only am I showing that online elections are doable, but that they are a pleasure to do. If I'm not mistaken, that makes us the first university to have full, binding student body elections entirely online in the nation. Can someone show a date of such an election earlier than Feb 29, 2000 in case we are wrong? I'm curious.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled grits.
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
Wave of the future: corner kiosks for up to the minute updates on legislation, so finally every individual can keep constant tabs on what laws they may or may not be breaking.
Fuck Slashdot
To a certain degree, I see your point. However, I would like to make a couple of opposite points:
Right now, it's very possible for about 5-10% of the population to block/pass (depending on the issue) a certain proposition. This is ludicrous. It makes it possible for a small minority of people to hold the entire populance hostage. I know, this is not supposed to be possible , but given low voter turnout, it very much is. This is no longer a problem for mandatory voting. In that case, you need a minimum of 51% of the vote to get something passed or blocked.
Now, this could be bad, too, given that maybe it's pretty close (say 45/55 split). For voter referendums, I would suggest requring a supermajority (66% or 2/3 of votes). In general, you should not be putting alot of legislative agendas on the ballot - that's what you have elected representatives. Referendums should be reserved for broad policy votes (Will we allow personal pets? and not Are cats allowed?)
Also, in my opinion, people who vote primarily (or solely) on a single-issue are very bad for the system as a whole. You do NOT want a system where all delegates have a single agenda, and are inflexible on that agenda. This leads to gridlock, animosity, and generally very bad government. While it may be possible for single-issue voters to swing a close election, in general, with mandatory voting, single-issue voters (who tend to be a small, but well motivated, percentage) cannot dictate the outcome of the election. They can right now, and that's bad.
The difference right now is that democracies are Representative Democracies, not Direct Democracies. When we get to the point where people can easily vote on all issues, then we can have this discussion over again about mandatory/voluntary voting. But in a representative democracy, very few individual "issue" referendums should be put to a vote. In reality, I'm for NO referendums, and let the representatives do everything. That way, you can kick them out and put in a new bunch to change stuff much easier than trying to get rid of old, bad referendums.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I've got my handy copy of Applied Crypto around here, and looked up the section on voting. I would like a bit more information about the actual mechanics of the AZ vote before I would say it's a step in the right direction.
Requirements for Electronic (Internet) Voting, such that the vote would meet normal US voting standards:
According to Applied Crypto, these are very hard to accomplish. Alot of the problems are centered around where you place trust in the voting system. In ther AZ election, I saw misplaced trust (ie, potential violations of the above principles) in three places:
While interesting as a first step, I think that this was a good example of exactly how far we have to go before Internet voting can become real.
Nice Try, but Not Quite.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Unfortunately, in the US, the number of citizen that are eligible to vote which actually do is very low. Last I looked, for a nationwide campaign like the Presidency, about 15% of all eligible voters would vote come Nov 2000. Now, that's about 40% of all registered voters (since not everyone who is eligible actually registers). I've read that there is a similar situation in many other "western" democracies that don't have mandatory voting laws (yes, some countries are much better, but not many). Complacency in the system is a nasty disease that hurts a country.
A big argument (which you will see in previous posts) is that people who cannot be bothered to participate in their own future by voting should not be accomodates, and indeed, would be harmful if they were accomodated by a universal voting law. A similar argument is that if we force uneducated (about the candidates/issues, that is) voters to vote, then the system will be skewed towards unhealthy trends (ie, those with a high profile/large PR campaign/demogogues), since those uneducated voters will be unable to make meaningful decisions on complex issues.
I'd like to put out my views on this, and as how Internet/Electronic Voting might help solve some of our voter turnout problem...
Also, the relative education (voting-wise) of a person has alot to do with the ease of access to solid information. If large amounts of both summary and detailed position information is available in an easy-to-access format (see, the Web!), then voter education is much higher. Granted, there will be a considerable number of people who do not read this information, and are swayed by PR, but if managed properly, this percentage should not be a majority (or even a large minority).
Oops, this is getting long. Conter-arguments, anyone?
;-)
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Where I used to live, they used paper ballots with serial numbers. The serial number was written in your voter registration records. The part of the ballot with the serial number was detached before the ballot was put in the ballot box.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
If 60% of the population is weakly in favor of X and 30% of the population is strongly opposed to X, does the passage of X serve the public interest? The current system increases the influence of those who are motivated enough about an issue to get up off their ass and vote.
The NRA is a good example of this. Even though gun control may be popular is some opinion polls, depending on how the questions are worded, the NRA has millions of members who feel very strongly about the issue. There are more than a few ex-Senators and ex-Representatives who lost their seats due to their support for gun control. The gun control advocacy groups are much smaller, raise less money and are heavily dependent on a small group of wealthy supporters. Supporters of gun control are much less likely than gun control opponents to base their decision on whether or not to vote for a candidate on the candidate's position on gun control. This is natural. If there was a ballot referendum to exterminate all cats, there would be a lot of upset cat owners showing up at the polling places, ready to lynch any candidate who endorsed cat control.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Yabut... How many of them were actually alive and breathing? I don't know about Arizona, but in Illinois -- Chicago specifically -- dead people routinely cast election votes.
This kinda gives a new meaning to the word "killfile"...
--
Of course it's silly. I'd call it a legitimate concern if the only way to vote was via the Internet, but it's not. Go to the nearest physical location you can vote at, and do so. And besides, if you *really* want to vote through the internet, just stop by your local public library.
The CEO of election.com Joe Mohen has just been on CNN a minute ago.
He claimed that it gave people more choices, especially people with disablities.
It was interesting information that election.com is a FOR-PROFIT company. It does legal binding votings since about a year, not only in the U.S., but also in Europe. Most of these votings were for companies.
I personally am a little sceptical about a for-profit company collecting votes in a democracy.
it's hard for me to find words for how utterly stupid and unbelievible(sp) this is. i hope this never EVER comes to my state (virginia). i absolutely guarranty(sp) this WILL be cracked. it's only a matter of time before someone finds the weaknesses and exploits them to elect whoever they want. accurate vote talling EXTREMELY important. hopefully, laws will be passed to make online voting illegal. this is truely beyond stupid.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Have you read that before??? It says nothing about giving "a well-organized militia the right to bear arms". It says that because the right to bear arms will not be infringed, the country will have a built-in militia.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other gun-banners not understand?
Which means you only have the right to keep and bear those Arms you received from the Government, as long as you are in the service of a Militia organized by the Government, with the purpose of defending the security of the State. The Militias organized by the Government to protect the security of the State are the National Guard and the Naval Militia. Keeping and bearing any other weapon is not a right, it's a priviledge which the Government may rescind at any time. That's why they won't let you carry a gun aboard a commercial airplane, for instance, or take your favorite assault rifle with you when you visit your dad or your sisters in prison.
You obviously don't understand what the word ammendment means. You can't possibly realize that what you just said equates the rest of the rights granted us by the ammendments to privileges which may be 'the Government may rescind at any time'.
I'm thinking the government should revoke your 'privilege' to spew this complete drivel.
Have you really forgotten the story about Jean McGrath so quickly? :)
slashdot Jean McGrath story
That said, I like waiting for the last minute, since I may always learn something about all the wacky propositions we have in California to want to change my mind. Absentee voting by mail sucks because you have to vote a week or more in advance (and apply several weeks ahead of time). A good, easy, secure internet solution is nice because you would be able to vote at the last minute (ideally without having to apply for such a voting option too far ahead of time).
In the future, I think the majority of voting will be done on computer, and it will help increase turnout. However, it will probably not do much to increase turnout for the poor (where the largest percentage of untapped voting power resides).
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
- But the head of a Virginia-based voters' rights group said the larger the turnout, the more discriminatory the election will be for minorities and others.
They go on to call it a modern day poll-tax. I think it's kind of silly myself, but it's an interesting point to counter everyone's "rah rah internet" attitude."It just dilutes the votes of minority voters because they don't have as much access to the Internet," said Deborah Phillips, Voting Integrity Project president. "The more popular this is, the worse it is from our perspective."
--
RumorsDaily
In California, we had elections last Tursday on various bond measures along with the candidate selections. I read through much of the material this year to see what those measures were really about. What I found was truly appalling: the bond names related to about 1% of the bonds' effects.
Two examples will help:
- Prop 12: Parks, Water, and Coastal Protection Act
- Prop 26: Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountabiity
Where are they getting the names for these bills? And have you read any of them? First, they're in lawyerspeak, which most Americans cannot understand. Second, they are looooong.The $2.1 billion bond covers aquisition of land containing natural resources, cultural centers for youth and senior groups, creating natural habitats, archaeological deposits, rock art, artifacts of California's physical legacy, sites, ruins and more.
Revokes most of Prop 13 from 1978 which implemented a cap (1%) on runaway property taxes. It changes the vote necessary from 2/3 to 1/2 for school bond issues. The rest mostly deals with limiting the growth of charter schools by increasing their costs.
So how is one to choose how to vote? Why, watch all the TV commercials: "Our schools are filled with violence!" -- "Our water gets more polluted every year" -- "Our kids will lose $700 million each year" -- "Indians will open casinos in your neighborhood."
The legislators know very few people will read the bills and be able to make an informed vote. They know the rest will rely on the TV ads. So the TV ads use the same tactics used to persuade you to by one laundry detergent over another: branding that appeals to your emotions and fears.
By encouraging everyone to "just get out and vote," we are vastly increasing the number of uninformed voters. Believe me, I want people to vote, but I don't want sheep to vote. But I'm sure that's what the legislators want.
No, I don't know what the solution is. People have suggested having civics classes that teach people what the bills mean, but who decides what the bills mean? If it's the legislators who provide the summary material, what's the difference?
I'd like to see the people who really care to take the time to research the bills be the ones voting. There's no reason for everyone to vote on all issues. Instead, provide a very easy way for people (everyone) to make their general desires known:
Then, those that research and vote can take into consideration the consensus of their community along with their own views. This, I believe, was supposed to be the role of the legislators, but we are well past the point of that being viable. Now they are merely concerned with reelection and spreading pork to their districts.
- PatientZero
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Voting began before Bradley dropped out of the race. In fact, there were 3 possible choices.
Didn't Bradly drop out of the race? 36,000 people got to click the 'I want GORE' button? woo... god, the political system in this contry is fucked up.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Oh, sorry. My vote bot got out of hand.
On the plus side, Mudge is the new representative form Arizona.
I'm terrible at math and all, but that's like one percent right? Sheesh. Democracy my foot.
Online voting was available for our recent Federation of Students election here at the University of Waterloo. I think we beat the Yanks to the punch by a week or two. I saw mention of this somewhere in print on campus, but I can't track down the clipping online. Here's a brief mention of the results though. Even though we were first to do online voting (which as far as I know is as legally binding as the Democratic one in Arazona), we were still mighty apathetic.
2 th.html
http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/bulletin/2000/mar/0
DataSquid.net, a little about me.
You might try reading the pages that were linked to: if you wanted to vote, you have to enter a PIN that was mailed out to before the election. I assume that, if someone tries to use an invalid PIN, or a PIN that isn't 'real,' then you can't vote.
I guess if you know someone else's PIN... but then again, that's not very different than knowing someone's password. Either way, there's not much you can do about it...
"The horse leech's daughter is a closed system. Her quantum of wantum does not vary."
Since this is the first and only intelligent post on this thread, I'll respond to it, even though it's quite a bit OT.
Being the libetarian type of person I am, I certainly agree with the notion that weapon possesion ensures liberty and democracy. I also agree that handguns or rifles or whatever people like to own won't make much difference in that type of fight.
However, I think referring to it as a fallacious argument is overreacting a little. First, even if the total gun ownership in the nation won't make a dent in the armament controlled by the military, that doesn't mean we should end right there and just take them away. Every little bit will help, if it comes down to it. Second, I highly doubt the military would resort to using biological weapons on US citizens. They don't even do that in places liike Libya or North Korea (that we know about, at least), so to think that they would use bio. weapons, or nuclear weapons, on its own citizens is inconceivable. Guns, therefore, could make a little difference, but I admit, not as much as in 1780.
There has been some kind of precedent from way back when that some weapons are just too dangerous for the public to own. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons certainly, and I would probably agree with that one. Also, any kind of large explosives ar either banned or highly controlled. Claiming that we would need bombs in the event we have to revolt against a civilized government might be a valid argument for large explosive ownership, until you realize that the potential for abuse is simply too large, from a utilitarian point of view, to allow. In other words, so many more people would die if random people could own huge explosives, that it's probably worth lessening the chances the citizens would win such a revolt. The question is how far you want to extend that argument. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons, of course. But will you extend it all the way down to automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or even handguns, and say that it's worth saving those lives, even though it lowers the chances that the people win their future revolt by x%? It's a question of balancing the two interests, and it's not one that can be answered easily and consistently. But next time you think about gun control and liberty, remember it's a continuium all the way from the H-bomb to firecrackers. How many lives do we want to save and how much do we want to risk the triumph of a totalitarian state?
[[ If this sounds disjointed and unorganized, it's because I wrote it down as I though of it, and I just had a few drinks. Thanks for reading. ]]
It looks like they have basic security in place to avoid ballot-stuffing, but there is no way they can stop people buying votes now, is there? When you vote, you usually get the privacy to vote for what you like, no matter who tries to bribe you. But under this system, I don't see any way to stop somebody buying your vote, and making sure that you follow through by watching you as you vote over the net.
Why?
Because for the first time in a long time the polls might actually be balanced. For many years this country has had more power given to older people than younger people because of how the voting system works. Let's face it: If you're retired and dependent on medicare, you're going to be damn sure to get your voice heard at the ballots! On top of that, you one of the few people who have the time to get down to the ballot boxes. Other people, however, who may work 9-5 jobs or worse, do not!
Now politicians may start having to pay attention to the younger generation once again!
This is true today. However it may not be true in a few years time. Today, fairly poor people (though not the very poorest) are more likely to have newer televisions and video players - because TV is a comparatively cheap form of entertainment. This may be true of Internet access tomorrow.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
It's the ever-lovable ``gnulix guy'' again, this time with a query for his beloved Slashdot fans: Would you vote for the ever-lovable ``gnulix guy'' if he ran for public office?
Vote with your minds. Vote with your hearts. Vote with your consciences. But not with your moderation tools (my karma is seriously in the hole!)
...signed, the ever-lovable gnulix guy!
Ummmm... no. We use voting booths and machines, so that no one, even the people running the show know who you voted for.
Spencer Ogden
Oh, go fuck yourself you retarded OS zealot.
Sure, it's not foolproof. But it's probably a lot more secure than the complicated paper systems that are in general use.
MSK
By your logic that people's votes should only count if they have to go out of their way to cast them, should we award multiple votes to people who live further away from voting centers and offer people who live close to a voting center a fraction of a vote? Should there be a bonus for people who don't have cars? Extra votes for people who are sick that day?
No, of course not. Everyone gets one vote becuase everyone is one citizen, period, end of sentence. It's the responsibility of the government to make our lives better, if they can make our lives easier (which they can with internet voting), then they have the responsibility to do so.
An often forgotten point, from what I can tell...
When the constitution was written, "the militia" was considered to be all the people in the United States. The reason being is that it was the people's responsiblity to defend the country -- there wasn't really a standing army, at least not one that could be compared to what we call the army now.
"well regulated", in the language of the time, doesn't refer to organization (or control by the government). Rather, from the research I did, meant more along the means of "up to date" or "modernly equipped."
What does this mean? Well, I think that it means that every person in this country has a right to own a "modern" firearm. This provision does NOT prevent the government from restricting access to certain firearms, it just prevents it from restricting access to all modern firearms.
You must also consider that for a long period of time, there was a law in this country requiring that every able bodied man keep a rifle and a box of ammunition in their home.
(for what it's worth, I don't own a firearm, and never plan on owning one)
Actually, said person will probably start surfing the net and actually RESEARCH the candidates before casting a vote, as you actually know who's running before the trip to the ballot box.
How many people do you know that actually know what they're voting on before they get there? Other than the highly publicized "races" on the evening *cough* news *cough*.
of course, presumably the only time anyone would punch a lace ballot is if all the candidates for every position, and all the measures presented, were just too dire to even consider...sadly, this situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS...
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
When I think of internet voting, what scares me is not that it might be insecure, but rather, do we WANT to make voting accessible to people who can't find their way to their local polling station?
:)
Perhaps an example would be useful: Take Joe Q. Voter. He's a 27 year old male, who spends all his time on the computer. He doesn't go to election speeches. He doesn't own a car -- just takes the bus, which isn't often.
Now imagine this. Our buddy Joe is surfing around the 'net, reading his e-mail, playing Quake, and looking at porn, when suddenly he sees a link that says "Vote Online Here!"
Remember, he hasn't paid attention to any of the candidates' election platforms. He's probably sitting in his chair, scratching himself (sorry for putting that image in your head) with one hand, and using his mouse to cast his vote with the other.
Now, ask yourself: is THIS the kind of person who we want to have a say in the next leader of the free world? I think not.
Lets face it folks, the world would be better off if some people didn't vote!
,-----.----...---..--..-....-
' CitizenC
' "Bug? That's Not A Bug, That's A Feature!"
`-----.----...---..--..-....-
The key here is "Armed". Should Joe Public be allowed to keep a SAW around? An RPG? Canisters of nerve gas? Perhaps some tanks? How about a few Atom Bombs? Back in the 1770's, the definition of "Armed" was much simplier. Should a group want to overthrow the current US government, it's not going to happen with a bunch of rifles and handguns.
The "Armed" of the 2nd Amendment doesn't just mean rifles and pistols. The founding fathers had personal cannon and warships, as well - the absolute latest high-tek superweapons of the day. And the general population's small arms ran to higher-accuracy longer-range rifles while the world's armies were still toting smoothbores.
There is no sign they intended that to change as technology improved - and plenty of sign that they intended the trend to continue. They knew about progress, especially in weaponry, and wrote about it incessantly. (Machine-guns, for instance, had already been prototyped at the time.) They stated clearly that they intended the population to always be BETTER armed than the government - both to stand off invasions from other governments and to their own government in its place - or destroy and replace it - if it ever got out of hand.
So if the minions of governments have SAWs, RPG, nerve gas, or nukes, what makes anyone think the founders would not have wanted the citizens to have them, too? The logic of the "balance of terror" is as valid between a population and its government as it is between two governments.
And what makes anyone think they're safer from a nuke in the hand of the likes of Hussein, or flammable-gas-projecting tanks in the hands of the likes of Horriuchi and Reno, than they are with them in the hands of a private citizen with the means to purchase them? (For myself, I'd trust any private citizen who could afford a nuke farther than most of the presidents since the start of the nuclear age.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just think: Once internet voting becomes standard the Chinese Army won't have to buy any more presidential elections. They can just put their new information warfare department to work and elect whomever they want.
Ok, congresscritters. You can stop doing the campaign-finance-laws dance.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
By the way, it IS possible to vote for 'none of the above', by not colouring any of the dots. In the days of paper forms you used to be able to draw a micky mouse on the form, but since we've got pin cards with magnetic stripes, and terminals with light pens, you can't anymore. The computer still allows you not to vote though, which is essential.
So even people who want to exercise their freedom of speech by not voting can do so.
At least there's more information in the fact that 3% of the voters returned an empty form, than in knowing that 51% didn't bother voting.
Great games
Here in Belgium, voting is mandatory. There's a fine for not voting, and every election there's a few thousand people (population ~10 million) that do get fined (although there's probably a lot more that escape).
One of the main arguments pro voting duty is that 'less privileged' parts of the population get to have their democratic say.
OTOH, some people think it encourages people to use their vote irresponsibly (voting for extreme right-wing parties out of dissatisfaction with more centrist ones, for example).
Personally, I like it. It gives me a warm feeling to know everybody's had his or her say in the government of the country. Oh, and it's nice to have a choice of parties, as well. As in more than two parties.
Great games
What's to stop you cracking the PIN Code? Then you have multiple IPs, deleted cookies...
...Student, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Somebody with access to a LOT of IPs and a little time could make a big difference, no?
Mong.
* Paul Madley
*...Slacker, Artist, Techie - Geek *
Remember: Nothing is Cool.
Just as any software package gets refined with time, election.com's will inevitably improve. Maybe Java, maybe Perl, hell maybe even ASP.. Who knows.
I think, however, the fact that over 35,000 people managed to successfully vote online makes b****ing about implementation (security withheld, of course) a moot point.
Consider this: Traditional voting rules dictate that there is a certain distance around voting booths within which there can be no campaigning or campaign signs. With internet voting, this becomes a very different problem. Net voting booths are set up in various communities (as has already been done). Since these are not traditionally sanctioned voting locations, do they have to abide by the same no-propaganda rules?
Well, voting over the internet may give more power to the lazy but i'm sure glad it does not give more power to the stupid. :wq
But that can't be applied to internet voting.
I voted absentee this year. I simply couldn't get to the poll in time - by the time I got back home (damn commute!), the polls would have been closed.
Think of internet voting like absentee voting, only with the use of a keyboard and mouse rather than a punchcard (at least for California, I dunno how they do absentee elsewhere)...
From what I read/watch they had made the network a very good one. But any time you do something first, you won't have everything go right.
While you're at it, could you:
Thank you.
Oh, and have Natalie bring some whipped cream. She'll be wanting to wear it later.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Note: I saw a news story on CNN (TV not web) on this so of course it was dumbed down, and reader-freindly but from what I could gather this is what it was trying to say:
Apparently what they do is something like current absentee ballots where you put your name on the envelop then seal the ballot in a seperate envelop and put that in the first. When the government gets that ballot it takes down your name and tosses the sealed ballot to the side to count on election day. The result for the absentee is that they get that you voted but no one know who you voted for.
For "e-ballots" what I heard was that they split the vote up, meaning when you click send (or whatever it is) the vote is broken up and sent to two diffrent locations. That means that they send the fact that you voted and all your information to one server, while the vote itself is sent to another.
How this works I couldn't exactly explain because the article was so vague, but I think that since you have to fill this out by multiple pages (the ballot is not on the same page as the personal info) I'm assuming that they automatically transition servers after you submit the personal info, and of course if the company doing this is even remotely legit, they do this via SSL/SQL (I don't do web security correct me if this is wrong) so you can't hit back and vote a gazillion times.
Also, the location of the servers for this election were kept secret and out of state to prevent tampering. They story also said something of encryption 4000 times more powerful than the current web standard (128-bit?), but of course they didn't explain how it was implemented and I have know idea how you'd implement it if the client side is still only 128-bit, 56-bit or whatever.
Well that's my explaination hope you like!
OakLEE
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
Were they able to collect statistics on how the internet voters voted, as compared to the overall population of Arizona? I'd imagine that could be an interesting statistic. (Although, given this primary season, more interesting in the Republican Party than the Democratic.)
*snicker* be like the weather reports. "Tuesday we expect a spot of lowered speed limit, so keep that foot off the accelerator - but that should clear up by Wednesday's meeting of the 623d division People's Congress. We're still having jaywalking enforcement on alternate Fridays for the next month. Oh, and the legal drinking age is at an all-year low of 16-3/4, but expect that to rise at state and federal levels in the next couple of months."
Corner kiosks? You lack vision, my friend. Wearables!
Go to this site and see what you find. I know it's not (in of itself) a security breech, but it certainly doesn't comfort me any.
I'm afraid I agree with those who say no online voting... it can't be done fairly, IMHO. (well, at least until they approve the new IP spec *grin*)
MO
But authentication for voting should be better than just having to enter a single PIN. What happens if somebody intercepts a bunch of physical this-is-your-PIN letters on their way to the voters, or -- better yet -- snoops on their PINs when they're being sent online? (According to another poster, the site doesn't even use SSL!)
The correct approach would be using public key encryption, which would eliminate the need to send out PINs (just grab the voting office's public key from the net) and, with a decent level of encryption like that offered by PGP, would make cracking the voting message nearly impossible. Unfortunately, I somehow doubt that the Powers That Be want to see PGP installed in every household, and the voting office still needs to get the public keys of all voters somehow. But there have been plenty of schemes for government-run public key authorities, and it's probably only a matter of time until the infrastructure for digital signatures is created.
In all, online voting is a nifty idea, but there are a lot of security issues that need to be considered very carefully when implementing it. As a trivial example, can you imagine the impact of a well-timed DoS attack?
Cheers,
-j.
I don't think that this makes any sense at all. I think any method of increasing voter participation is good. While registering people automatically is kind of silly, this doesn't fit along those lines. Basically, it makes voting a more convenient process, and increases participation.
- The first online election they did as a company this summer was for the IEEE. Believe me when I say that IEEE representatives went through the software with a fine-toothed comb, and made absolutely certain it was secure by their standards, which were extreemly strict. While I can't talk much about the software itself, suffice to say that just about any security problem you've thought of they thought of a long, long time ago, and fixed.
- As far as the anonymity of the elections, yes, this is difficult to preserve in a strict sense. However, as far as I know, the PINs and names are kept in completely separate databases and never cross-referenced at all. Valid PINs are generated independently of the voters. Election.com also obviously signs strict confidentiality agreements with the AZ democrats, etc, so the chances of vote tracking are remote (and illegal) at best. The PINs are also generated from a pool large enough to make the aforementioned "Birthday paradox" extreemly improbable. It would be infinitely easier to get a fake ID and walk into the physical polling place and stuff the ballot that way.
- As far as the disparity between different socio-economic classes, several of the press releases stated that an additional 29 polling places would be set up (above the traditional polling places) in under-privelidged neighborhoods to compensate.
Just on a personal note, regardless of my connections with the company, I think online voting is absolutely one of the best things that could happen to the democratic process in this nation. From the voter turnout in this election alone, we can see that many, many more voters have turned out to express their opinions in this election. Voting this way is not catering to the "lazy" voters out there, as was suggested. Rather, it is giving the opportunity for everyone to take part in their government without ever having to leave their desks. I think if this catches on in other states (and eventually nationally) the democratic process in this country will improve exponentially - more people will care more about what is going on in their government, and for once, more people will do something about it.What makes you so sure they actually buy elections without the Internet? Maybe they coerce the vote-counters! Bullets are cheaper. Oh... You mean the *AMERICAN* presidential elections..
Maybe these early Internet voting schemes are straw-men to keep the old system (very opaque to the voters) in place? Maybe you're astroturfing for the Dept. of State!
Anyone who has discovered public-key crypto knows that Internet voting is both workable, desirable, and is *FAR* cheaper than punch-ballots if done *CORRECTLY*...
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Which is probably because I haven't got the faintest idea how the US voting system works (it seems to be kinda weird, however :-)
> Aren't elections suppose to be annoymous? Can't they simply track your voting record by cross-referencing it with your pin number?
Don't you normally have numbered sheets where you have to put your vote on? That would be exactly the same. But there are laws which forbid to cross-reference them to get personal voting data.
The lack of SSL connections is however quite dumb...
Does that mean that you have no other choice than to physically go to some place and enter your vote there?
Not even by snail-mail?
If it really is that way, I'm not too surprised that too few people are voting in the US.
If the 3rd parties use this concept wisely then they stand a good chance of being able to punch holes in the republicratic dictatorship
Linus Torvalds nominated for President!
WASHINGTON-Today, 20,000,000,000 voters voted over the internet in a surprise nomination for president, the Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
"Well, I'm honored, really, to get so many votes, but I wasn't actually born here, so I can't do it," a happy but reluctant Torvalds says.
"This is the highest voter turnout we've ever seen!" Says Sen. H. R. Flappergaster. "The voter turnout for Mr. Torvalds was over 10000%. I have never seen anything like it."
Some of the other candidates attacked the results, saying that the votes were 'faked.' They sited the fact that '20 billion is over three times the population of the Earth.' The Committee to Elect Linus Torvalds did not respond, except to say "neener neener neener."
Then again, I could be wrong.
Back in a U.S. History class a few years ago, my teacher was discussing the topic of low voter turn out rates and registration rates. In his discussion, he mentioned a case in which a congressman proposed that all U.S. citizens be automatically registered in order to see a higher voting rate. However, that idea was shot down quite quickly by another congressman who indicated that we should not register people who are too lazy to put in the time and effort to obtain an application and register to vote. There were no rebuttals.
In some senses, voting via the internet seems to fall along similar lines. Such an action seems to be giving-in the people who are not motivated enough to drive to the polls to cast their votes. The above action should thus be avoided.
The Amendments to the Constitution, and the Constituion in general is for limiting the powers of the Federal government. Look at the 10th amendment for proof. The text of the Declaration of Independance (which most of the Constitutional delegates also signed) says, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Because it is an amendment, does not make it so.
To the gun thing....in the next sentance or two after the unalienable thing is this: "...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So to the gun-control advocates I say this... If a goverment cannot trust is citizens to be armed, why must the citizen trust the goverment? The Framers knew that personal possession of firearms was *critical* to any people being able to keep their government in check. Hell, when Redcoats are facing you with muskets, all the name calling and rock throwing won't get them to listen to you.
(stepping off the soapbox)
You can argue all you want about gun rights, but please don't tell me it's because you need to be ready to violently overthrow the government.
In viewing today's reality, this "need guns to have a revolution" argument is really a non-argument. Personal defense? Well, that's a much stickier question.
We can get more votes than that in a slashdot poll!
---------
Thus Spake Dave
Meine Hühner lachen Nicht!
This is the type of liberal drivel that really annoys me. To think Internet voting excludes poor people because they don't have computers is ludicrous. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPUTER, GET UP AND GO TO THE POLLING STATION. For God's sake - people with money can afford to be lazy and vote by computer. So what are we gonna do, spend billions of dollars of tax money to give poor people computers so they can be lazy and vote on the Internet, too? Will that be "fair?"
PS: Not attacking you, sreo, just the annoying liberal mindset that accompanies any new innovation in this country.
hmmm, I wonder if they send them to the entire voting list or only people who have re-registered that year. Here in Cambridge, you only get voter info if you filled out the little "census and re-registration" card that they send you every year. But everytime I go and vote, the lists include housemates who moved out long ago and people who lived here before my landlord even bought the house. If they sent to everyone and had as bad a policy on inactive voters as we do around here, yeah, people who lived in say an appartment complex with a high turnover could cast 20 votes just by gathering up the envelopes in the return to sender stack in the mailroom. Or, better yet, recruit a couple of mail carriers to just keep all the notifications that they know don't live there anymore.
Not saying this would realisticly effect an election, just thinking about possible holes. Addmittedly a collection of people in different districts with good memories and the ability to read upside down can quarduple or more their votes around here if they want to put in the effort, so take it as you will.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
(sarcasm)
Oh, gee. Thanks for the clue. Duh. What was he thinking?
I'm sure all criminals will license their guns
(/sarcasm)
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
This is completely off-topic..but anywho. I dont see how you can possibly claim that gun control legislation is unconstitional. The constitution says give a well-organized militia the right to bear arms. It makes no mention of the right to bear arms without a license. Nor does it mention an INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms, for that matter.
We live in a mature democracy. The first of its kind. You cannot make the argument that individuals need to bear arms to protect their freedom. Guns for indivudals serve only 2 purposes - Crime, and protection from crime. Ban all handguns, and miraculously remove all guns from society, and you'll have a lot fewer murders. Me thinks it would be quite a lot harder to kill someone face to face, stabbing them 20 times, then it would be to shoot them in the head from 10 feet back.
signature smigmature
- James
Register with www.algore2000.com (Givign them your PIN number, SSN, whatever else is needed for voting. algore2000.com sends you an email when voting starts, with a "One-click voting link."
Implementation's of this would be very handy for a candidate. Combined with a few highly-viewed television ads directing people to the website, this could be very interesting.
signature smigmature
- James
Dummy, go to your browser's options and set java applets' security to 'lower'.
You can't handle the truth.
It's a great idea that you can now vote online. The process looks simple. You type in a pin number that they sent to you a few weeks earlier, cast your vote, and your all set.
I see one big problem with this.
Aren't elections suppose to be annoymous? Can't they simply track your voting record by cross-referencing it with your pin number?
Another thing that worries me about this is that the pages don't look SECURE. When IE is on a secure page the icon of a webpage turns golden. They have a bunch of screen-shots and the icon doesn't look golden. You can grab them here. Wouldn't this be a little problem? Hmmmm.
I suppose 31337 kids wouldn't be able to answer correctly all the questions, but I wonder how many husbands voted for their wives?
Me enjoid voting two. Me voteed too times for Bredlei, and tree times for Bore. Voting good. Me wants to go living in the USA. Can I get green card in the Internet two? Me good script kiddie.
Look. What about those people disabled or too elderly to be very mobile? Perhaps they should get a double vote since they are making even more effort than the average Joe to get to a polling place? As far as the concern over the names of propositions and such, isn't that why there are summaries pro and con?
The first legally binding public election via the Internet is the first step toward innovation in our present form of government.
Remote voting is extremely efficient. The steep increase in turnout in Arizona demonstrates that technology has the potential to allow voting on a much broader level. In the future, we may no longer have to rely on candidates to speak fully for us. Perhaps, the people of a nation could individually vote on political issues.
On the local level, referendum-style voting occurs all the time, but what about on the national level?
I would like to make an assumption here. Suppose we can avoid the balloting process being influenced in an inappropriate/disproportionate manner by special interests and other groups. That is, suppose we could have a fully secure and accurate voting system via the Internet. Then I think a true people's government (an open government) could be a reality
Much like the telephone, computers will soon be in every home. The connection provided by the Internet could allow a national level voting populace to decide on the legislation of specific issues instead of a select few. What bills do you want to have passed? What bills do you oppose? Instead of writing a letter to your congress person, cast your own vote.
I wonder if everyone having such specific voting power would be a bad thing? Popular sentiment is easily influenced by the news media. Can that component be minimized acceptably?
So let's change topics for a second. The open-source ethic seems to have spontaneously come into existence at the present level (without giving specific credit where due). When open source works, open source propagates. A fundamental change to the nation's political system could yield the same result. An open government, that is one in which the people have full scrutiny and voting power, could work self- correctingly. When problems arise, the dissemination of current and plentiful information via the Internet and remote voting could work to fix things. You don't have to do it for us -- we'll do it ourselves!
Optimal efficiency and participation are high ideals. Is there enough faith in the people to be able to decide their fates? Will the corruption found in all political systems keep this theoretical notion of government from coming into existence? Could such a system even be created?
Anybody want to start the Open Party?
--
Free.
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Reposted from a clip that ran a couple of days back at www.macintouch.com:
A letter from Jim Hays described his experience with Internet voting in Arizona:
"Well, friends, the Macintosh is still not quite acceptable in the real world. This week I have tried several times to participate in the much-ballyhooed internet voting in the Arizona Democratic Party primary election. Each time I got all through the various preliminary screens only to be faced with a BLANK ballot at the end. After a toll call to tech support in Phoenix, I finally was told those familiar words: 'We don't support Macintosh.' So much for 'expanding the options.'"
What, me worry?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
The Constitution certainly in no way demands federal gun control. Article I Section VIII, by not granting it, forbids it. The Second Amendment forbids it again.
And where does it say, "the priviledge [sic] of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Most of the authors of the Constitution considered the keeping of arms to be a natural right. This is not hard to show.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Not even by snail-mail?
Americans may use the mail to vote by "absentee ballot". You don't actually have to be absent from where you live. A Google search on that phrase will provide many explanations. I don't believe this is very popular, however.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Last week, V.I. Lenin came to me in a dream and told me that I will be the one to lead the revolution (a Vanguard Revolution (TM) at that). He told me that I would overthrow the government and become the emperor. He also said that I would be shot five years later for what its worth.
Seriously though, western history over the past few hundred years has mirrored that of the early roman empire. In fact the similarities are quite striking. Right now our history lines right up with the late Republican period. As was the case for rome at the time, politics is becoming messier and messier, the US is failing to assimilate (culturally) its diverse citizens, and there's that whole economic divide thingy. But then we're SOOOOO civilized, nothing can happen to us- or at least that's what they said.
By the way, in regards to revolutionary rhetoric in the opener, Muhuwahahahahahahahah, Muhuwahahaha
-One last comment, The Slash engine needs to allow the posting of other alphabets or just Cyrilic will do
...via the /. pole engine at that. How about the official pole election be for the next pole subject? or else elect the better last pole topic- CowboyNeal or Hemos
wow you mean a website set up by old Uncle Sam didnt work on a system built by "Software Architect" Bill "the messiah" Gates didnt work?? How is this possible?? ;) And futhermore, when something like this happens it seems more and more like the short story i read where a guy decided to go out for a walk one night - a robotic cop arrested him and threw him in the loony bin for not sitting at home watching TV. Right now you can do everything else online, lets have you vote too, and then maybe you wont notice or care when your vote for Candidate A is replaced by a write in vote for bill gates III, or even better when everyones vote is lost but a few extremist loonies who dont trust "them computer doowhackys" and some millitia leader from West Virginia is elected pres.
That means any Internet-connected computer THAT ISN'T RUNNING MAC OS.
The number might have been significantly higher if they had allowed Mac OS users to vote.
The first candidate to complain about not allowing Mac OS machines gets my vote.
_________________________________________
This was not the first legally binding internet vote in the world. The student council of a german university (I don't remember which one) could be elected via Internet approx. a month ago. In germany this is an official election (really!). I'm not sure if this was the first one though.
"It may be your sole purpose in life to serve as a warning to others."
I'd like to know what measures are being taken to prevent fake votes. This is a tool that can work for democracy or against it. Leave it up to some 31337 script kiddie to make is counterproductive. Yeah, well...
Welcome to the new america, where freedoms are slowly replaced by gun control laws and other unconstitutional legislation. Maybe i'll move to canada, where I can be safe. Better yet maybe ross perot can hire hackers and run for president next time around. .
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
My university, Kansas State University, just finished the general election portion of our student elections on Wednesday of this week. It looks like we had a 4% increase in turnout, but I will attribute some of this to the "newness" factor of internet voting. I am also concerned about some of the issues raised by critics of internet voting. They say that it excludes some segments of our society that do not have computers or internet access. This concern does raise a very interesting topic, what can be done to open up the internet voting to all in America and still be secure. Talk to ya later, Joey Bahr