Elections on the Internet -- Not Any Time Soon

jACL writes "From the Technology Review article: "After several years debating minimum requirements for voting equipment, the computer science and public policy communities appear to agree that the Internet--as it exists today--can't sufficiently safeguard the privacy, security and reliability of the voting process. Pitfalls range from the obvious, such as malicious hackers, to the obscure. For example: Every state requires that votes be cast in secret, but how can officials verify that a party hack isn't standing beside a remote voter?"" Unfortunately, this is probably all to true.

Comments

opps

[neal n bob]

thought it was another katz article - erections on the internet.

Re:opps

[Fucky the troll]

Here is the Katz election article (plug plug) :)

Kudos!

[ringbarer]

An on-topic fist sport.

Has anyone tried their "real" accounts today? Seems they're handing mod points around like "Jonestown Juice" flavor Kool-Aid at a Linux User Group meeting.

It doesn't matter ...

[jc42]

Ah, it doesn't matter, anyway. The Supreme Court just set a precedent that says that courts can ignore ballots and state laws dealing with how they are to be counted, and "elect" someone by a vote of the court itself.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[neal n bob]

you were talking about the florida supreme court, right? dumbass - did you go to law school? have you studied election law? did you read the florida supreme court decisions? thought not.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you get flamed to death you loser. You've been waiting for a story like this so you could pust your bullshit. Did you happen to know that they did finish counting in Florida and Bush did win.

You dumbass. Post your unfounded, political bullshit somewhere else.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[jc42]

Nope; I was talking about the US Supreme Court. As I recall, what happened was that they (in effect) threw out the Florida Supreme Court's decisions and thus decided the election themselves.

Also, in a democracy like the US, it is not only the right, but the duty of all citizens to study such things and form their own opinions. A law degree is specifically not required of citizens who wish to participate in elections. Ad hominem attacks like "did you go to law school?" are appropriate for some other forms of government, but utterly irrelevant in a supposed democracy.

(And in the US, any "dumbass" is allowed to vote. ;-)

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[jlower]

Except for the tens of thousands of mostly black, mostly Democrat voters who were disenfranchised prior to the election simply because they had the misfortune of sharing a last name with a convicted felon. That's how the election was really stolen and the only decent coverage of it that I ever saw was by the BBC.

Okay, that part was off-topic but this part isn't.

The real problem is two-fold. Making sure every voter is permitted to vote and making sure the ballot is understandable.

If you don't accomplish these things first, it doesn't matter how/where/when you hold the vote. Fix what's broken first!

You might argue that the Florida 'butterfly' ballot was understandable but the mere fact that people are arguing about it (to my mind) proves it wasn't clear enough. It should be undisputably easy.

Given the current state of the web, I don't see how they could hold an election over it. I can see the complaints now - "I pressed the VOTE button and...".

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, it doesn't matter, anyway.

Woohoo! Apathy wins again!

See poll comments for the joke.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Orne]

Yeah, so what if it was illegal for the Florida Supreme Court to make the decision for a recount in the first place... why should we care about laws?

Besides, they didn't "decide the election themselves". The people voted for Bush, the original count showed Bush received more votes in Florida, and the after-the-fact review of votes by the media also showed Bush received more votes.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[invenustus]

Except that the "Civil Rights Commission" and their cronies have yet to produce one person who was legally registered to vote and was turned away in Florida on November 7th, 2000. But hey, it's only 2002. I'm sure they'll find someone soon.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[PoiBoy]

George W. Bush won the election fairly and squarely. Get over it already.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Grax]

I empathise with those who had name trouble. Both I and my sister have had trouble getting our driver's licenses due to the PDPS (officially the Problem Driver Pointer System, unofficially the Perfect Driver Punishment System).

In my case Alabama showed up with a claim to have suspended my license even though I've never been there. Based on a match of my name and birth date, the ticket involved proved to be for speeding and not having a license. So besides the fact that my name is a very popular one (I estimate there are 7000 using it in the United States based on US Census data) they never even had proof of who they pulled over.

I don't know the details of my sister's case yet.

So I empathise with victims of flimsy checks using names and birth dates for matches.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[LowellPorter]

Double (or more) punched, underpunched (none for that race) is what was thrown out. How can you garantee a vote is for a paticular candidate if more than one was punched or none at all?

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[neal n bob]

I often find that those slinging about comments like "the US Supreme Court decided the election" have very little understanding of the law or all the of legal decisions in the election contest.

You say it is your duty to study these things and I agree - I asked if you read the florida supreme court decisions and I assume the answer is no. Why not? If the U.S. Supreme Court had not thrown out the Florida Supreme court decisions, then it would have been that court deciding the election. That Florida supreme court overturned a district courts judge's decision on the facts of the case - another situation where understanding the legal system would allow you to understand how out of the ordinary their decision was in that case. That is my point about law school - there are rules to the game and you have to know them to fully appreciate what went on.

Go read the dissenting opinion of the Democratic Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme court in their final decision, then you can start to understand a little more about the overall case. He predicted that the US supreme court would overturn the Florida Supreme Court decision.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[damiangerous]

Except for the tens of thousands of mostly black, mostly Democrat voters who were disenfranchised prior to the election simply because they had the misfortune of sharing a last name with a convicted felon.

Oh, please. Name one. The election was November 7th, 2000. Fifteen months ago yesterday. In that time, not a single person has come forward to say that they, personally, were turned away from the polls. Two people have said that they saw police cars near the polling area and felt "intimidated" so they kept driving. Yet not a single person has claimed they showed up to vote and was refused. Surely, out of "tens of thousands of black voters" you could find a single one who was turned away?

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a warped idea of fair and square...

You're probably snorting the same stuff George W is

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[gorgon]

George W. Bush won the election fairly and squarely.

How many degrees are in a square in your world?

I'm not Bush stole the election, but fair and square is not a phrase that should be anywhere near that election.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[jlower]

Well, I won't name her (because she's not here to speak for herself) but ONE of these people was my ex-girlfriend who called me in tears because they wouldn't let her vote. It kind of broke my heart because when we met she was totally uninterested in politics. I'm the one who convinced her to register to vote. They wouldn't even let her cast a provisional ballot. Together, we called and wrote the local newspapers in the weeks following and got zero response.

The US Civil Rights Commission acknowledges the issue on their website where it says "Non-felons were removed from voter registration rolls based upon unreliable information collected in connection with sweeping, state sponsored felony purge policies;". I know this is quoted out of context but feel free to check it out for yourself.

The BBC report estimates between 80,000 and 100,000 voters were wrongly prevented from casting ballots in Florida. The link to that report is here - http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row= 1 .

I'm not suggesting we re-do the election but let's do admit there was a problem and work to fix it.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the Republican version of "fair and square". Just look at Enron.

Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Alan Partridge]

George Bush has never done ANYTHING fairly and squarely. He's a politician (and worse, a right wing politician) who's father was president, who's brother is a state governor and who's friends are billionaire crooks and enviro-rapists.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

and how about the mostly Mexican, mostly Democratic, mostly boarder jumpers who were nationalized so they could cast a vote for Clinton/Gore?

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[damiangerous]

Okay, then why didn't you come forward when there was an opportunity? The Civil Rights Commission held a completely open hearing on Jan 15, 2001, and requested people to testify. Three people came forward, all of whom were allowed to vote at the time. One person was in a situation exactly as you describe, she was removed from the rolls accidently. One call to the voting supervisor straightened it out and she voted. Sure, there were plenty of people removed mistakenly, but there are no reports that any of those people were unable to get their problem resolved satisfactorily.

You had your opportunity to come forward publically. You didn't do it, so apparently it wasn't all that important to you, though you claimed to spend weeks writing letters. Maybe you should have been reading those newspapers you were writing to so you would have noticed the hearings on the front page of every paper.

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please... I'm a canuck, and it's more than obvious that Bush won that election.

Yes, you could argue that the Electoral College System is stupid, and that popular vote is more important, but that's irrelevant to the question because you don't change the rules mid-way through an election.

There's all sorts of "unfairnesses" about the US election system, but you agreed to those rules going in, so don't whine that they worked against you.

And that isn't the only time that popular vote != victory. Just look at the election before the most recent in British Columbia. Liberals won the popular vote, NDP won the election. Then in the most recent election, the same system gave the liberals all but two of the seats in the legislature even though they had merely just over 50% of the vote. Yes it's a screwy system, but saying that either time involved "cheating" is just sour grapes. You knew the system going in, and no one seems to bitch when it helps them out...

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

except Gore won the overall popular vote..anyway, the its not the people's votes that count..only the electoral college's votes. This is why Bush won..

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

that ticks me off too.

we hear all sorts of big claims, but no proof.

Makes me think of the boy who cries wolf...

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's BORDER, and since when has America NOT welcomed immigrants? fucking twat

Re:It doesn't matter ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the tens of thousands of mostly black, mostly Democrat voters who were disenfranchised prior to the election simply because they had the misfortune of sharing a last name with a convicted felon.

Black people haveing the same names as felons? Say it isen't so!

Black cause 46% of all violent crime, when they only make up 14% of the population.

also....

[neal n bob]

that was yet another frist pist, and props to all logged in trolls.

Re:also....

[October_30th]

Right.

I'm off to the pub and I'll raise my glass to John Rusnak tonight!

All the arguments against online elections

[abe ferlman]

Are also arguments against absentee ballots. Perhaps we should get rid of those too- wonder who the president would be today.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[jc42]

Probably George W, by the same 5-4 majority.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[TrollMan 5000]

Perhaps, but it's overridden by your right to vote, even if you're out of town on election day.

Seems like the right "from" something is usually overridden by the right "to" something.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[Anonymous Freak]

Perhaps, but it's overridden by your right to vote, even if you're out of town on election day.

Or, if you live in the state of Oregon, you ONLY vote by mail. How do we know that us voters in Oregon don't have party people standing over our shoulders?

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[markmoss]

One real, unsolvable difficulty with both absentee ballots and internet voting is that it becomes impossible to guarantee people are voting in secret. But we also accept that blind people won't be voting in secret -- although there are both technological and non-technological ways to give them a secret ballot, no American district I have ever heard of has implemented them. For that reason alone, absentee ballots should be restricted to real need, not Oregon's policy of giving them to anyone who just doesn't want to stand in line.

Aside from the secret ballot, at present paper absentee ballots, properly run, are considerably more secure than internet voting could be. You'd have to suborn a lot of people to be able to tamper with paper absentee ballots in the mail, and someone would talk, but for e-voting you just have to crack a computer.

The bigger challenge in either system is verifying the identity of the voter. This gets worse when election officials aren't following all the rules. Florida rules required the request for an absentee ballot to include name, address, and voter registration number. Missing ID #'s got a lot of applications thrown out, but for certain voters in certain counties, republican party workers filled in the ID #'s. Furthermore, ballots were supposed to be postmarked before election day, which creates a difficulty when the damned post office doesn't date it's postmarks; in some counties, Kathy Harris got that rule waived, but not in others. (Who was it that sued about not counting everyone's vote the same?) But if the system had been run honestly, very few bogus absentee ballots would have been counted. It's just too hard to steal large numbers of identities when you have to send paper documents by snail mail, unless you create an organization big enough to make leaks probable.

My best guess is that if Florida had accurately counted all the votes statewide, George II would still have won. But we'll never know, now. And if the entire system had been running honestly, I do not think that either the Bush's most wayward son, or Mr. Roger's evil twin (Gore) would have had a chance at the nomination...

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[stinky wizzleteats]

Are also arguments against absentee ballots. Perhaps we should get rid of those too- wonder who the president would be today.

When one considers that absentee ballots are the only way military personnel deployed overseas can vote, and that those personnel voted nearly 2-1 in favor of Bush, I think there's little doubt.

Do you advocate preventing our military volunteers from voting? It seems Bill Clinton's defense department agreed with you.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[[Zappo]]

One real, unsolvable difficulty with both absentee ballots and internet voting is that it becomes impossible to guarantee people are voting in secret. But we also accept that blind people
...
The bigger challenge in either system is verifying the identity of the voter. This gets worse when

Well, almost.

I did my master's work on electronic voting. The real problem is that it's hard to simultaneously provide a secret ballot and obtain adequate proof of the voter's identity. This is true even when you don't consider the case where someone might be looking over the voter's shoulder during the voting process.

There are several schemes that have been proposed for dealing with this, but none are really adequate. Actually, it has yet to be shown that an adequate solution exists.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up on that media recount - they did all sorts of scenarios. I dont have a link, and dont exactly remember, but I thnk they said Georgey Porgey did win, and would've won under the system of recounting that Gore had asked for in select counties, but if they had recounted the entire state, Bush would've lost.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind Oregon's "policy of giving them to anyone who just doesn't want to stand in line" has changed. In the last few elections we have moved to an exclusively vote-by-mail system, so even if you wanted to stand in line, you can't because all the polling places are gone!

Hmm.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[mshomphe]

AFAIK, the media consortium that conducted a recount of the ballots STATEWIDE in Florida reached 2 conclusions:

1. Had Gore's legal eagels gotten their way, GWB would have won.
2. Had the ENTIRE STATE been recounted, Gore would have won.

It was #1 that was touted in the mainstream media, above the fold. You had to read the entire article to realize that, in truth, Bush lost.

Moderators: I know this is OT...

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[Brooks Davis]

...and this is a GREAT thing, IMNSHO. I don't go to the polls, ever. The last time I did was because I moved too late to register for absentee status.

Vote by mail does several good things. First, it lets you vote without being rushed. Second, it increases voter participation significantly. Third, it dilutes the influence of money in the campaign because you can't just go on a last minute ad blitz since a significant number of people have already voted by election day. The other thing about Oregon's system is that it's demonstrated that many of the theoretical problems, don't appear to exist. Last time I checked (a few years ago) there had not been one, signal reported case of coersion. That's not to say it didn't happen, but the complete lack or reports would seem to indicate that it's not common enough to worry about.

It would be nice if other states would adopt Oregon's counting policies where it must arrive by election day or at least only allow a few day's leway. The current system of postmaker date as used in Washington and other states is what caused most of the absentee related mess in the presidental election.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[srichman]

One real, unsolvable difficulty with both absentee ballots and internet voting is that it becomes impossible to guarantee people are voting in secret.

The best current solution of which I'm aware is allowing subsequent "in person" votes to supercede absentee votes. This is used in practice in many (most?) states.

The retort to this is that the Bad Person can keep the voter under lock-and-key until the election ends, so the voter can't recast her vote. This is possible, but certainly more logistically difficult that just being around when the absentee envelope is sealed/submit button is clicked.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[markmoss]

I don't really expect coercion, but based on history, I wouldn't be surprised by lots of vote buying. Maybe the pols haven't figured it out yet. Or maybe they don't have enough cash per voter to make it work...

OTOH, you could argue that if our congressmen get to sell their votes, why don't we? ;-)

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[markmoss]

To do this by computer means that you have to keep the on-line ballots linked to the person's name until the polls close. That gives significantly greater chances for some kinds of tampering...

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[wkw3]

Blah blah blah. 'Course if all of Florida had been recounted, then GWB would have requested a recount of a Red state. Then Gore would have requested a recount of another Blue state. ...and we'd still be sitting here wondering who the Prez was going to be. Then there'd be nobody around to stop the next skyscraper from getting knocked over.

When the hell are people going to get over this? Take one cup election, add 6 gallons of ugly partisan politics, 10 cloves of idiotic punditry, 300 different voting standards. Stir, cook at 90 degree Florida heat, and after an hour what do you get? A statistical TIE. The errors inherent in the process of having 270 mega-people voting in fifty different states with dozens of different counting standards drowns out any possible signifigance of the votes of a couple of Florida counties. That's all this election was, too fucking close to call. Mathematically undecided.

So here we are, years after the fact, and people are still whining over this. Get over it! The differences between the two major candidates was statistically too close to call anyway.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[mshomphe]

Try again. I believe that Gore was ahead nationally by ~500K votes. Not a statistical tie. It's the Electoral College thingy that got everyone in a tizzy.

I voted for Nader, but I will continue to whine about this election because it was a Very Bad Thing (tm) to happen to American democracy. It pointed out fundamental flaws in the system that have yet to be remedied. If you're not angry with the method of how the 2000 election was decided (not the actual outcome of who won), you're not paying attention.

Re:All the arguments against online elections

[bnenning]

I believe that Gore was ahead nationally by ~500K votes. Not a statistical tie.

Which is irrelevant. If the election was to be decided strictly on the popular vote, the campaign would have been very different. For example, Bush and Gore would actually have spent time campaigning in states where it was obvious who would win the majority of votes (New York, Texas, etc). Furthermore, voters would have also behaved differently; many who voted Libertarian or Green in uncontested states would have instead voted for whomever they saw as the lesser of two evils.

DonkeyNut

[DonkeyHote]

crapflood jesus sucking
loved burger sucking
jesus mummy burger
mummy mummy crapflood
round 13 crapflood
13 jesus 13
round mummy loved
troll burger jesus
burger idle 13
troll sucking idle
round idle idle
troll idle troll
13 idle idle
cocks mummy loved
round sucking loved
round cocks idle
loved burger crapflood
cocks crapflood idle
will mummy will
sucking loved 22
will cocks 22
round then cocks
then burger mummy
jesus loved 22
mummy will crapflood
mummy idle then
loved then round
troll mummy sucking
jesus cocks round
loved sucking mummy
crapflood burger burger
burger 22 burger
22 jesus troll
22 round troll
troll sucking 13
mummy burger loved
cocks 13 troll
22 sucking 22
round loved 22
22 cocks burger
13 crapflood then
round sucking idle
round mummy crapflood
jesus troll round
troll jesus will
sucking 22 idle
burger then troll
then sucking sucking
idle loved cocks
cocks cocks jesus
troll jesus cocks
13 sucking jesus
troll 22 cocks
idle sucking round
then round idle
burger mummy crapflood
mummy round 13
loved crapflood then
22 loved crapflood
round troll cocks
22 jesus sucking
mummy will jesus
jesus idle 13
cocks then cocks
will round idle
then loved troll
then round crapflood
then cocks then
sucking sucking mummy
crapflood jesus jesus
crapflood round burger
22 mummy then
loved will mummy
burger sucking loved
mummy idle idle
mummy 13 mummy
round troll jesus
jesus 13 jesus
then then burger
troll idle mummy
troll sucking round
sucking will crapflood
cocks troll burger
mummy then troll
crapflood mummy 13
burger then 22
then idle 22
13 jesus loved
will jesus 13
crapflood 13 idle
crapflood will cocks
then idle will
round 22 13
round round 13
jesus idle idle
sucking crapflood cocks
jesus round idle
jesus will 22
idle troll 13
loved loved round
crapflood then jesus
22 22 idle
crapflood troll burger
13 loved loved
then mummy idle
crapflood crapflood 22
mummy will loved
jesus troll mummy
jesus will 13
will will sucking
loved 22 burger
burger cocks will
round loved then
mummy 22 cocks
jesus crapflood jesus
mummy crapflood idle
cocks burger loved
mummy loved crapflood
22 13 mummy
burger loved idle
idle round 22
cocks idle then
loved cocks burger
loved mummy round
cocks jesus sucking
sucking 13 round
troll 22 crapflood
crapflood idle will
crapflood 13 will
13 burger jesus
burger loved will
burger cocks sucking
cocks crapflood burger
13 22 jesus
crapflood loved burger
then round cocks
cocks crapflood troll
will will troll
troll 22 troll
cocks troll 13
burger troll loved
burger cocks jesus
loved troll burger
jesus then crapflood
cocks troll cocks
sucking 22 cocks
idle idle round
round cocks cocks
burger loved 13
mummy idle idle
will troll crapflood
burger sucking idle
burger 13 mummy
loved round troll
13 mummy sucking
crapflood idle crapflood
troll troll 13
cocks cocks mummy
idle burger round
mummy burger 22
mummy crapflood jesus
idle 13 troll
jesus then 22
loved 22 then
idle then loved
13 cocks troll
sucking 22 then
burger crapflood sucking
mummy idle burger
mummy idle jesus
sucking jesus round
cocks will mummy
idle 13 troll
22 burger cocks
burger burger 22
jesus round burger
round round will
loved round troll
loved crapflood jesus
loved sucking crapflood
troll 22 loved
22 cocks crapflood
will cocks mummy
cocks cocks loved
will sucking crapflood
round troll idle
22 will crapflood
mummy round idle
then crapflood idle
22 burger idle
then jesus jesus
13 loved cocks
22 crapflood loved
will crapflood 22
troll loved idle
then sucking 13
mummy then burger
jesus round burger
troll loved sucking
then then jesus
13 will idle
mummy burger will
13 cocks will
troll idle 22
sucking loved mummy
cocks 22 idle
jesus 13 jesus
sucking crapflood burger
jesus will idle
crapflood mummy then
cocks loved mummy
round burger mummy
mummy jesus burger
jesus 22 round
will 13 sucking
mummy 22 crapflood
then sucking sucking
loved idle mummy
22 cocks idle
then mummy troll
jesus 13 burger
22 loved then
13 loved burger
then sucking sucking
jesus 22 loved
sucking crapflood troll
jesus jesus then
idle then loved
idle crapflood loved
idle will troll
idle idle burger
jesus round 13
cocks loved then
round 22 22
crapflood burger then
cocks 13 loved
mummy troll loved
mummy 13 cocks
sucking round 13
jesus sucking loved
cocks cocks burger
jesus idle mummy
troll 22 13
sucking sucking idle
loved round troll
jesus will loved
troll will idle
then burger loved
sucking burger cocks
cocks mummy round
then then 13
sucking mummy 22
mummy jesus jesus
burger crapflood 22
round mummy then
idle idle crapflood
13 jesus troll
crapflood 13 mummy
then 22 idle
burger idle burger
13 troll 13
mummy troll 22
then cocks loved
will 22 mummy
then crapflood will
22 then troll
cocks loved 22
troll loved loved
mummy jesus will
idle troll 22
burger burger idle
22 mummy troll
13 cocks 22
13 troll idle
22 round jesus
will then mummy
burger mummy troll
crapflood round cocks
mummy troll then
round troll sucking
round sucking 13
mummy round then
idle jesus idle
round sucking round
troll idle burger
burger then sucking
loved cocks loved
crapflood 13 round
round round cocks
cocks troll will
cocks mummy troll
13 jesus sucking
burger 13 sucking
loved loved then
burger round 13
13 22 then
burger 13 cocks
loved 22 loved
mummy 22 burger
troll 13 then
troll idle 22
idle crapflood cocks
13 troll 22
idle idle 22
13 troll idle
cocks mummy idle
sucking will sucking
then mummy 13
troll mummy will
mummy mummy will
idle burger troll
jesus mummy loved
jesus mummy crapflood
jesus jesus burger
22 cocks 22
sucking sucking will
burger mummy round
round crapflood jesus
cocks crapflood mummy
22 cocks jesus
idle then burger
loved mummy loved
jesus burger then
sucking will loved
22 loved jesus
then cocks jesus
then then 13
burger cocks 22
burger burger burger
13 crapflood 22
cocks will jesus
sucking will idle
22 jesus jesus
then crapflood idle

Not as Secure, but more accurate

[Cinnibar CP]

Granted, online voting wouldn't be more secure, but provided the one-person-one-vote limit could be enforced, it would be a helluva lot more accurate than a room full of people searching for hanging chad.

Re:Not as Secure, but more accurate

[rhost89]

If they want to try to maximize security, then just dont send the data over the internet. Just create a national voting intranet.

Re:Not as Secure, but more accurate

[Bilbo]

Your arguement is cyclic, and reduces to:

If they fix all the problems in technology X, then X won't have any more problems!

If they fixed all the problems in physical voting systems, then they would be more accurate too.

Besides, you haven't even begun to address the problems of coercian, secrecy, access, reliability, security, scalability, etc... Surely, examples like passport and the disaster that is IIS should tell you just how difficult it is to make software really bullet-proof!

It only makes sense

[ramb]

The city council has moved to mail-in ballots for municipal elections in my jurisdiction. This too was a schmozzle of the hugest proportions, and think of how trivial that is compared to electronic voting...
you know where people live, they don't change their address every time they go home, you know from tax returns how many people live at an address. Who can verify anything electronically. Remember that old saw "on the internet no one knows your a dog"?

Re:It only makes sense

[gmack]

Unfortunatly I don't see how they would make sure some jerk doesn't steal the ballots from the street and vote for several people at once.

Feel free to fill me in on how they prevented that.

Re:It only makes sense

[ramb]

Exactly the point. I have no idea either, and neither does anyone else. My wife received a mail-in ballot but I didn't (we have lived there for 6+ years). Thousands of residents were missed and had to present in person anyways, and God help you if their records showed that they had mailed you one. The automatic assumption was that you were trying to rip-off the system, rather than some random jerk systematically skewing the process. Yes coincidentally the "voter turnout" was higher than ever.

Re:It only makes sense

[Cinnibar CP]

I don't see how they would make sure some jerk doesn't steal the ballots from the street and vote for several people at once

And the point of voting for more than one candidate would be.... effectively cancelling out your own vote?

Sorry, you lost me on that one.

Re:It only makes sense

[gmack]

I meant voting in place of whoever the ballots belonged to.

Re:It only makes sense

[Cinnibar CP]

Ok, that makes a helluva lot more sense now.

Re:It only makes sense

[Alsee]

Why am I suddenly reminded of Abbot and Costello?

Umm, and in case anyone doesn't recognize "Abbot and Costello", fill in Bevis and Butthead and you'll get the general idea :)

-

Privacy

[Peaker]

You can never verify the privacy of the voters, because they may choose to tell their vote. If they choose to let others watch their vote on their machine - fine. As for 'hacks' regarding viewing people's votes on their machines, this may be solved by vote-boxes or so that connect directly through your physical media, and run some firmware.

If its all digitally signed and cryptographed, vote boxes sound nice to me.

Ofcourse it should always be allowed for people to vote as they do today, if for some reason they cannot guarantee their privacy, or an internet connection.

If people do vote as they do today, give voters a day off to vote, as sane Democracies do :)

And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Mickey Mouse wins by a landslide!

No internet elections is A Good Thing

[envelope]

Having to actually get off your arse and go to a polling place to cast your vote is A Good Thing. It makes sure only the truly motivated actually vote.

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Shame that in Florida last time around, some of the people who made it to the voting station could only summon up enough energy to 'dimple' their ballot!

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[gazbo]

That makes a refreshing change from the usual 'We must combat voter apathy!' Instead, a laissez-faire attitude, on the principal that if they are too lazy to walk to a poll booth then their vote is pointless anyway.

You know, I'm beginning to like that idea - the only problem is that the highest percentage turnout will be the fanatics (on whatever side - but not necessarily cancelled out) and the disabled would be under-represented.

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[mikeee]

Besides, if we went to internet voting out next President would probably be...

Cowboy Neal!

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[the_2nd_coming]

not realy since it takes just a trip to city hall 3 months in advance to order an absentee balot

the disabled have no reason not to vote except lazyness, whby the way, I find that most TRULY disabled folks are the most motivated people I know.
(I say truly because being a fat ass is not a disability, nor is any other controlabl ailment that we so often see folks using to get those nice little handicap stickers so Grandmothers who have to use a wheelchair to get around, can not park in an accessable spot.)

sorry about the rant :-)

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - but it might be the same people who get off their ass to go and see WWF "contests" (that's World Wrestling Federation not World Wildlife Fund). Is it just me, or is there anyone else who sees the Smackdown audience and thinks that the "30 questions" weren't such a bad idea if they're applied to people of all races.

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[Alan Partridge]

nearly - Cowboy Neal would be in the lead right up until the Microsoft ballot-stuffers warmed up. Next stop, President William H Gates III! YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT.

Re:No internet elections is A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not completely true, the 'fanatic' base is probably a very small demographic. As for the disabled, well, they create more problems than they're worth... KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL, HE..HE..HE.. UH ...

Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the 'Net

[SirSlud]

The notion that voting on the Internet would constitute an advancement is disgusting. How many people without access to the Internet would have to work /harder/ than those who already are wealthy enough (presumably) to cast their vote via computers.

More wealth stroking. Internet voting would be all about making life easier for those who's lives are always considerably easier than those who couldn't vote online. How on earth can the article not point out how internet voting would undoubedly contribute to less political representation by those already on the wrong side of the digital divide (even if simply by increasing the participation of those on the right side of the digital divide.)

I'm not against using it for over-seas voting, etc, but to hope that one day we'll all be using the Internet to vote is a scary thought - the poor already have enough of a hard time being heard.

Erections on the Internet? I got one reading this!

[DonkeyHote]

then 13 loved
mummy troll loved
then sucking idle
troll will troll
idle sucking will
mummy idle sucking
will then loved
round idle loved
mummy cocks idle
mummy 13 sucking
jesus troll idle
13 round 13
sucking idle sucking
then troll loved
round troll troll
loved loved loved
sucking 22 burger
loved idle idle
will troll 22
cocks jesus 22
burger then 13
round will mummy
jesus cocks idle
mummy loved 22
cocks burger idle
jesus mummy jesus
22 jesus burger
jesus loved 13
jesus sucking then
troll will idle
13 jesus troll
jesus round cocks
burger crapflood crapflood
round loved mummy
mummy then sucking
then cocks sucking
cocks mummy crapflood
then crapflood loved
round burger 13
sucking then jesus
22 idle 13
cocks crapflood 13
burger 22 loved
22 13 mummy
jesus will troll
will idle sucking
cocks crapflood burger
cocks mummy troll
sucking cocks cocks
troll troll burger
idle then then
burger 22 jesus
then mummy then
burger troll sucking
round then cocks
cocks idle burger
22 mummy round
22 loved burger
13 13 round
will cocks crapflood
loved will cocks
jesus loved jesus
troll will loved
crapflood round sucking
jesus jesus sucking
round round mummy
loved round troll
round idle then
will idle burger
crapflood sucking burger
round sucking will
will will 22
troll idle 22
troll crapflood 13
then round 13
13 22 burger
troll then 13
cocks 13 loved
troll mummy crapflood
burger 13 crapflood
mummy round then
cocks jesus mummy
22 round round
22 crapflood mummy
idle loved loved
troll burger troll
burger 13 13
13 sucking sucking
mummy troll jesus
then sucking 13
then 13 sucking
13 troll crapflood
burger sucking burger
burger then 22
will troll 22
loved troll will
jesus troll then
will burger will
crapflood troll jesus
troll then idle
idle mummy troll
round crapflood crapflood
sucking round then
jesus round 22
13 sucking idle
idle mummy round
troll then mummy
loved round will
mummy loved cocks
jesus then jesus
idle 22 then
mummy sucking loved
idle round loved
troll sucking then
round idle then
will loved burger
will crapflood sucking
13 then troll
crapflood 22 13
sucking sucking mummy
mummy troll crapflood
jesus mummy round
troll round loved
jesus sucking idle
troll sucking then
mummy mummy cocks
troll burger then
13 then 13
13 then cocks
then crapflood troll
round idle round
sucking will cocks
idle burger crapflood
idle loved troll
idle round cocks
loved loved burger
idle 13 sucking
round crapflood 22
crapflood burger mummy
round troll burger
then sucking 13
idle round jesus
mummy jesus mummy
13 mummy idle
troll troll will
jesus crapflood round
jesus jesus troll
13 loved troll
loved burger burger
jesus will round
mummy round troll
loved troll jesus
loved 22 13
then then mummy
loved troll loved
then idle crapflood
will cocks sucking
22 crapflood cocks
crapflood loved 13
13 crapflood will
jesus burger jesus
mummy round then
burger troll cocks
round jesus will
idle troll sucking
troll will loved
then idle loved
22 loved cocks
burger troll then
sucking round cocks
burger 22 burger
mummy burger idle
crapflood loved cocks
will then 22
sucking loved then
idle 22 sucking
troll crapflood idle
round cocks 13
cocks then loved
cocks jesus sucking
will loved jesus
sucking will loved
will jesus jesus
troll crapflood will
loved loved troll
troll loved burger
will jesus 13
burger troll mummy
burger crapflood will
13 then then
sucking sucking sucking
loved mummy cocks
jesus will burger
then 22 mummy
cocks jesus idle
burger idle troll
loved sucking burger
cocks 13 then
troll mummy then
then sucking troll
then cocks then
round jesus 22
22 22 jesus
13 loved crapflood
jesus cocks crapflood
loved cocks idle
round sucking sucking
will 13 burger
will sucking jesus
13 will sucking
jesus round will
round troll idle
22 loved crapflood
then sucking will
loved cocks burger
burger loved jesus
loved will mummy
mummy then 22
sucking burger burger
jesus sucking 22
round mummy crapflood
loved round 13
mummy 13 round
round jesus 13
mummy burger cocks
mummy 22 round
22 jesus mummy
22 mummy round
mummy troll crapflood
loved jesus mummy
round jesus cocks
will will 13
mummy crapflood burger
loved crapflood then
22 will sucking
troll troll 13
13 cocks burger
round round loved
then will will
cocks will will
burger 13 sucking
then troll crapflood
burger will then
then will idle
22 cocks sucking
burger loved idle
mummy then 13
22 burger jesus
jesus then then
22 will round
sucking round will
burger sucking idle
idle round sucking
then burger burger
burger sucking then
13 sucking crapflood
jesus loved mummy
crapflood then crapflood
cocks crapflood 13
then loved then
troll will crapflood
round 13 round
burger mummy round
mummy 13 idle
loved crapflood loved
troll round 22
jesus idle round
then burger sucking
then cocks mummy
mummy burger then
13 sucking 13
troll round jesus
round 13 22
troll then sucking
burger mummy 22
13 troll crapflood
burger round crapflood
idle then mummy
22 burger 22
loved idle round
cocks mummy round
mummy sucking will
sucking troll mummy
loved 13 13
burger loved crapflood
troll jesus 22
then round mummy
burger idle then
13 sucking troll
cocks then crapflood
burger idle will
loved crapflood will
22 troll idle
loved 13 troll
jesus loved round
22 loved will
crapflood 13 then
cocks cocks jesus
13 idle jesus
22 22 13
idle jesus 13
13 idle crapflood
22 cocks loved
will idle jesus
round troll then
jesus then sucking
round round crapflood
will mummy will
13 13 22
13 idle loved
sucking crapflood 13
crapflood will 22
crapflood 13 sucking
loved will 22
round burger round
troll crapflood idle
loved 13 troll
crapflood idle burger
cocks crapflood troll
troll round 22
idle cocks burger
mummy round 13
cocks round cocks
cocks burger burger
sucking troll cocks
22 loved idle
loved 13 then
mummy mummy 22
mummy jesus mummy
idle idle troll
sucking 22 burger
troll 22 burger
idle loved will
troll 22 idle
then sucking crapflood
13 burger will
loved cocks troll
round idle cocks
22 22 13
idle will will
will idle mummy
will crapflood idle
loved burger will
cocks burger 22
will troll jesus
22 will idle
cocks round 13
will mummy round
mummy burger idle
22 round sucking
mummy then idle
jesus mummy then
will cocks round
burger crapflood troll
cocks round will
loved troll sucking
troll 22 cocks
mummy then idle
jesus crapflood then
troll burger then
then burger 22
cocks cocks 13
crapflood loved idle
idle crapflood jesus
loved troll 13
round round 22
jesus jesus 13
sucking jesus loved
then cocks cocks
idle loved will
round burger loved
burger idle then
burger 22 troll
22 crapflood troll
mummy will sucking
then cocks cocks
burger crapflood mummy
13 then sucking
loved burger crapflood
round crapflood sucking
loved idle mummy
13 round crapflood
loved burger mummy
13 round mummy
13 loved cocks
22 sucking 13
mummy troll crapflood
cocks round will
sucking idle loved
burger idle mummy
troll loved cocks
idle cocks round
burger round mummy
crapflood cocks mummy
jesus idle cocks
then burger mummy
troll jesus round
13 burger loved
crapflood will will
22 troll crapflood
jesus sucking sucking
loved idle crapflood
jesus will burger
sucking jesus 22
13 loved then
then round jesus
mummy sucking jesus
mummy 22 jesus
jesus burger loved
troll cocks mummy
cocks round loved
idle mummy jesus
22 idle 22
jesus 22 22
mummy 22 sucking
sucking loved round
then idle sucking
cocks burger idle
mummy idle 22
troll loved 22
crapflood 22 will
crapflood mummy then
cocks then burger
13 crapflood jesus
round will crapflood
round then loved
22 round mummy
round then round
troll idle 13
loved burger idle
crapflood cocks 13
cocks loved sucking
mummy troll sucking
idle idle mummy
mummy burger crapflood
sucking cocks troll
loved then mummy
then idle jesus
cocks burger 13
sucking round round
13 22 22
troll crapflood burger
22 troll round
mummy cocks jesus
cocks mummy jesus
loved cocks then
jesus jesus round
crapflood loved then
cocks 22 13
loved burger sucking
13 mummy crapflood
will crapflood crapflood
troll troll idle
22 crapflood jesus
loved round will
troll round jesus
burger sucking troll
sucking mummy burger
idle 22 cocks
then idle sucking
jesus jesus then
13 idle troll
loved then mummy
13 round mummy
will jesus cocks
will troll crapflood
jesus cocks sucking
will crapflood 13
will loved troll
burger crapflood then
then troll round
then jesus troll
round 22 mummy
sucking loved troll
13 will 22
crapflood will mummy
round mummy troll
round idle troll
cocks jesus mummy
will will 13
22 will sucking
troll mummy jesus
mummy loved then
crapflood burger mummy
22 sucking will
crapflood 22 sucking
round loved crapflood
13 13 sucking
crapflood jesus will
round crapflood mummy
22 will then
mummy loved mummy
then sucking sucking
will crapflood idle
troll jesus 22
jesus round cocks
round 22 13
sucking mummy burger
loved burger mummy
22 round crapflood
will will loved
round 22 sucking
mummy burger then
sucking mummy mummy
sucking will 22
13 round troll
burger crapflood idle
idle burger round
crapflood then mummy
burger 22 jesus
burger troll mummy
mummy round 22
cocks cocks jesus
idle troll idle
13 cocks jesus

old school vs. new school

[zenintrude]

hackers or chads... either way we're screwed.

Re:old school vs. new school

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all such garbage. The sitch in FL was caused by bad ballot design, outdated equipment, and (lest this critical issue be forgotten) a damn-near dead heat in the election. Maybe we can shave a tiny bit off of GWB's 7.8 Billion dollar missile defense idiocy to buy FL some optical vote readers.

Re:old school vs. new school

[Alan Partridge]

you forgot the key issue of NEPOTISM. Why isn't it illegal, exactly? Seems strange that America (or at least SOME Americans) went to all the trouble of breaking free from the tyrannical British crown just so they might set up their own ruling families. Kennedys', Bushes, all the same really and it CANNOT be right. At least the British monarchy has absolutely no political power whatsoever - you Americans aren't so lucky...

vote

[karmalien]

new pasttime for scripot kiddes.. dosing voting machines

Another pitfall ...

[pyramid termite]

... Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf is elected President.

Re:Another pitfall ...

[markmoss]

So how is that worse than what has been elected lately?

Re:Another pitfall ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Impossible. Hank died. RIP.

Re:Another pitfall ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the slow father and son get my vote. anyone know if they won their hand of cards this morning?

Re:Another pitfall ...

[KilljoyAZ]

For one, Hank is dead.

Not sure if that answers your question or not...

Re:Another pitfall ...

[Stonehand]

Considering that for this to work, it would have to be Hank the Undead Angry Drunken Dwarf, I'd say -- yes.

Re:Another pitfall ...

[markmoss]

Well, under the present system, dead people vote. And where I vote, the votes are counted by poll workers who look 90-something and must be getting close to dead themselves. So what's wrong with electing a dead man?

They did elect a dead Senator in Missouri (I think) last election.

Best of all, an Angry Dead Drunken Dwarf wouldn't do much. Compared to Clinton and Bush, that's _good_.

Re:Another pitfall ...

[sharkey]

Better than Stuttering Mike. At least Hank can get "Mississippi" out in one breath.

KPevin!

[Tri0de]

Kevin Mitnick for President.

Re:KPevin!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I don't think he'd be able to run as he was convicted of a felony...but I'm not sure.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

Note that the above assumed by 'voting on the Internet', we mean voting from home. I'm not neccessarily against using computers at poll stations, as this doesn't discriminate against those without access to the Internet at home, or disproportionately empower those that do.

I FUCKED TACO AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS VD!

[DonkeyHote]

idle 8 oj
will sucking oj
sucking 8 loved
will will idle
then killed crapflood
then crapflood cocks
8 8 Simpson
sucking crapflood then
round munger crapflood
loved jesus will
round crapflood sucking
loved sucking killed
oj munger Simpson
jesus Simpson oj
sucking round then
will sucking idle
munger crapflood crapflood
idle munger killed
munger crapflood idle
cocks munger then
round then cocks
sucking sucking then
munger crapflood idle
then oj 8
jesus munger crapflood
round will munger
loved idle round
oj sucking cocks
killed munger 8
will 8 round
munger killed then
loved idle oj
8 sucking munger
jesus idle Simpson
round sucking idle
then 8 crapflood
will loved loved
idle crapflood Simpson
oj jesus killed
crapflood cocks killed
cocks cocks idle
will 8 sucking
cocks round cocks
then sucking oj
crapflood then loved
killed then jesus
crapflood will crapflood
8 8 cocks
jesus Simpson loved
will 8 munger
round Simpson jesus
munger loved cocks
Simpson killed will
crapflood cocks jesus
cocks cocks cocks
jesus munger crapflood
idle crapflood 8
oj jesus crapflood
Simpson killed oj
killed 8 cocks
jesus cocks will
jesus Simpson 8
cocks jesus then
sucking oj 8
jesus 8 idle
cocks killed jesus
jesus jesus killed
round munger then
sucking cocks crapflood
round oj munger
then crapflood idle
oj then idle
munger munger oj
round then oj
idle jesus jesus
munger oj killed
idle oj munger
oj round crapflood
killed oj loved
idle cocks idle
Simpson then munger
8 crapflood oj
loved 8 jesus
8 killed munger
then idle Simpson
oj sucking crapflood
8 8 jesus
crapflood killed will
sucking round will
oj then 8
8 killed round
crapflood idle idle
Simpson killed killed
sucking cocks then
idle crapflood round
Simpson Simpson crapflood
jesus Simpson round
idle then round
then then sucking
will will loved
munger cocks will
then loved round
8 idle oj
killed killed munger
round sucking oj
sucking loved then
idle munger sucking
munger idle will
killed crapflood munger
then round idle
Simpson loved 8
munger cocks sucking
oj idle Simpson
loved Simpson killed
will killed will
loved Simpson loved
cocks cocks idle
sucking crapflood cocks
then jesus oj
round killed round
crapflood killed round
oj crapflood 8
loved crapflood killed
jesus loved idle
jesus killed munger
Simpson 8 will
killed killed 8
round jesus oj
oj jesus round
will sucking cocks
Simpson oj killed
8 munger then
idle sucking then
cocks 8 8
loved loved oj
Simpson jesus will
round then 8
jesus jesus killed
loved idle jesus
idle sucking round
oj killed then
sucking killed round
will then round
sucking oj killed
8 jesus 8
will jesus munger
crapflood sucking jesus
cocks crapflood cocks
sucking 8 idle
Simpson munger crapflood
8 cocks will
cocks crapflood oj
will 8 loved
killed 8 then
then Simpson cocks
then Simpson jesus
loved crapflood will
Simpson will killed
will sucking oj
8 sucking munger
jesus oj sucking
then munger loved
loved then idle
cocks loved 8
Simpson munger loved
round oj round
then loved oj
round munger idle
killed idle Simpson
crapflood oj killed
round 8 then
idle will sucking
crapflood crapflood Simpson
killed jesus Simpson
jesus cocks crapflood
jesus crapflood oj
oj then round
round jesus crapflood
8 round 8
cocks then oj
crapflood crapflood munger
oj cocks then
idle will Simpson
then crapflood crapflood
round oj cocks
munger sucking idle
round munger loved
crapflood will loved
8 munger oj
munger jesus idle
8 sucking sucking
sucking cocks will
jesus munger sucking
sucking crapflood cocks
idle loved munger
Simpson Simpson jesus
munger Simpson Simpson
sucking killed idle
Simpson munger jesus
Simpson idle idle
8 round idle
will jesus jesus
loved Simpson loved
munger sucking Simpson
cocks munger will
oj loved then
crapflood Simpson sucking
sucking idle killed
8 will jesus
then 8 loved
loved oj jesus
jesus munger munger
idle idle Simpson
then will round
8 sucking oj
idle then idle
Simpson loved sucking
oj cocks jesus
round sucking jesus
crapflood will munger
round cocks round
cocks loved will
idle munger round
then munger round
then cocks then
loved loved killed

Shame

[CaptainAlbert]

What a great pity... I'm sure I'm not the only one who was looking forward to voting for CowboyNeal. :)

Re:Shame

[Anonymous Coward]

at least whipe the shit off your mouth first.

Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

[selectspec]

Unfortunately, this is probably all to true.

...this is probably all too true.

Expect more from your editor.

Re:Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

[eMilkshake]

Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

CmdrTaco

Expect more from your correctors.

Re:Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha
3rd grade english is a challenge to most weenies..

Got transaction tables ?

Re:Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

[blur00]

Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

Grammar?

Re:Cmd Taco needs a basic grammer course...

[Alan Partridge]

selectspec needs a SPELLING COURSE grammer? Cmd Taco??

Slashdot Polling Engine

[arget]

You mean we can't use the Slashdot polling engine? I thought that was accurate to within .001%...

Re:Slashdot Polling Engine

[per unit analyzer]

The problem with the Slashdot polling engine is that CowboyNeal would be a candidate in every election...

--z

Re:Slashdot Polling Engine

[Alsee]

accurate to within .001%

Yep. Just like regular elections - we are 99.999% sure that we have no idea what the actual answer is, but here's a random one anyway :)

-

Yup...

[tiltowait]

Didn't someone used to have a sig like 'the supreme court ruled it legal to screw voters, and demonstrated how to do it'?

Just proof that throughout the whole election mess people's opinions - from ordinary citizens right up to the members of the US Supreme Court - were dictated by who they wanted to be in office.

Text voting

[stephen_rymill]

Voting by mobile phone text message is going to be trialled in the UK at the next election. See this BBC News story. This has a lot of the same issues as internet voting - have they really been thought throught yet?

Re:Text voting

[nick255]

It should be noted that this is only to be trialled in Local Elections, not in national ones.

Re:Text voting

[damiangerous]

Voting by mobile phone text message is going to be trialled in the UK at the next election.


You're going to let teenage girls decide your next local elections?

Re:Text voting

[Aexia]

Anything to get Britney out of prostitution.

Karma Whoring

[Ezubaric]

A report on the reliability of various voting systems (including Internet) from MIT/Caltech.

How To Secure Voting Via Internet

[Rebel Patriot]

First of all, to institute a federal mandate to require all votes to be cast over the internet would require an amendment to our Constitution, which currently gives the States the right to decide how they want people to vote (within limits). Assuming this is done (a herculean feat), securing the internet for voting shouldn't be that hard a thing to do really.

Imagine this, each county in every state runs their own VPN between the voting offices. Each VPN would feature a different encryption screen, and each vote would be encypted as well. This means that not only would every vote feature 128-bit encryption, the entire VPN would as well, making it impossible to know who placed what vote. Also, ballot stuffing could be eliminated because not only would you have to crack the VPN, you'd also have to submit a properly encoded vote in order for it to count. One misplaced 0 or 1 scratches the entire ordeal. Since the VPN's would only be up for one day, hackers would have little time to break the encryption.

Just a few thoughts.

Re:How To Secure Voting Via Internet

[rednox]

Are you talking about having secure kiosks at each voting office? If you are, I assume that you mean to only allow voting from these kiosks, and not allow voting from home. If this is what you mean, then why use the Internet at all? Phone lines from each voting office to a central collection office would be much more secure. 56Kbps is plenty for this, since we are not talking about very much data, even with encryption.

If you are talking about having home users connect via the Internet to their local voting office, then you are missing the big security holes.

It is trivial to secure the actual connection between the voter and the voting office. The big problems lie in securing their PC.

Picture a version of any of any of the big worms that have circulated recently. All it would have to do is intercept the voter's mouse clicks in the voting app and redirect them to a different vote. If it was clever enough, it could even manipulate the video display buffer to make it appear to the voter that nothing has changed.

These worms spread like lightning, and could be unleashed on the day of the vote, making it unlikely that Joe User would update his virus checker in time.

Secrecy of current voting methods

[nick255]

I think people over-estimate the security of current voting methods. Ballot papers can be marked, ballot boxes stuffed. It is the legislation and the risk of being found out which discourages cheating, rather than the security of current methods.

Sweaty Donkey Balls!

[DonkeyHote]

will sucking crapflood
will killed cocks
donkey donkey round
crapflood then killed
then killed round
balls killed idle
donkey balls balls
sucking sucking cocks
will donkey 8
crapflood crapflood sucking
killed donkey sweaty
crapflood will loved
sweaty idle loved
idle sucking round
idle sweaty sweaty
sucking crapflood sucking
will killed round
jesus will round
jesus loved cocks
jesus round cocks
jesus balls crapflood
crapflood crapflood killed
then 8 loved
will then round
crapflood 8 sweaty
will idle sweaty
balls jesus will
8 loved crapflood
donkey sucking will
donkey will loved
loved 8 balls
idle balls sweaty
will donkey will
round donkey donkey
will loved loved
8 balls cocks
then loved loved
balls sweaty round
loved 8 balls
crapflood loved balls
killed will sucking
crapflood idle crapflood
balls round jesus
cocks crapflood then
loved donkey crapflood
donkey loved killed
jesus 8 sweaty
sucking 8 donkey
sweaty balls 8
donkey then will
jesus balls donkey
sucking cocks loved
crapflood donkey cocks
will loved loved
sucking sweaty sweaty
8 killed loved
crapflood jesus round
killed round loved
round round round
donkey crapflood round
cocks will then
sucking killed killed
round 8 round
then killed round
cocks round cocks
donkey sweaty donkey
sucking sucking will
loved round round
sucking 8 idle
balls crapflood loved
killed sucking sweaty
idle cocks idle
8 sweaty donkey
idle will will
idle sweaty killed
donkey balls 8
jesus sweaty crapflood
loved idle 8
round round killed
loved idle idle
round sweaty sucking
will killed idle
loved balls sucking
8 will cocks
crapflood jesus crapflood
jesus jesus crapflood
will jesus then
will loved then
8 sweaty round
jesus then sweaty
balls jesus will
donkey cocks crapflood
round 8 round
cocks killed killed
loved then crapflood
sweaty balls crapflood
killed will 8
killed sweaty 8
loved sucking idle
round round will
killed will killed
loved crapflood then
cocks sucking idle
sucking 8 will
sucking jesus 8
sweaty loved jesus
cocks sweaty balls
cocks sweaty sucking
donkey jesus loved
idle will cocks
round crapflood donkey
killed round jesus
will crapflood sucking
sweaty loved will
then round sweaty
sweaty idle loved
killed crapflood balls
loved loved round
loved will jesus
then jesus cocks
8 killed balls
crapflood killed cocks
loved 8 sweaty
loved donkey then
8 round donkey
donkey then donkey
killed sweaty killed
donkey sweaty then
sucking sweaty 8
sucking donkey sweaty
will sweaty cocks
will sucking will
balls sucking then
sucking will cocks
will jesus idle
sweaty will loved
balls donkey sucking
idle jesus idle
crapflood loved then
will 8 loved
crapflood 8 jesus
sweaty cocks killed
then loved killed
loved killed balls
cocks then cocks
sweaty jesus donkey
idle killed donkey
round 8 crapflood
balls jesus will
crapflood crapflood loved
balls crapflood will
idle cocks sucking
killed round cocks
cocks donkey idle
round 8 then
crapflood donkey donkey
then sucking crapflood
balls idle sucking
round donkey 8
sweaty then sucking
8 sucking crapflood
jesus loved loved
idle jesus crapflood
idle crapflood will
will idle round
crapflood will crapflood
cocks sucking jesus
jesus will sweaty
jesus cocks loved
round round round
jesus then round
killed crapflood killed
8 then jesus
idle killed balls
donkey cocks sucking
jesus idle balls
8 will jesus
sucking loved balls
then sucking sweaty
then round crapflood
round 8 idle
sweaty will crapflood
then balls sweaty
sucking killed donkey
sucking crapflood cocks
loved round round
loved then sucking
killed crapflood idle
sucking jesus cocks
then sucking will
donkey then donkey
then loved round
cocks round sucking
will donkey sucking
crapflood sweaty jesus
round jesus donkey
sweaty loved 8
8 then balls
sucking sweaty jesus
sucking

It's the same as mail in votes...

[Bartab]

How did they know a "party hack" wasn't standing by as all the Oregon voters used mail in votes?

Same issue really.

Re:It's the same as mail in votes...

[arget]

With a mail in ballot, there's still a paper trail, and a real signature. It's an easier audit trail. So that the newspapers can figure out months later who really won.

G/PG/P signatures are too complicated for the average person. The technical aspects that would be required for internet-balloting are way too complicated for the average Joe.

Now, "smart card" balloting, that would be something....

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[jandrese]

Geez. Nobody ever said life was fair. Maybe we should all just give up our computers since the poor and uneducated don't have access to them? Wait! I'm College educated, I should get a lobotomy so I don't trample the rights of the uneducated?

Plus the local non-computer owners can go to the library to cast their vote. I saw this as a chance to avoid having to go to the elementary school (especially since it's several miles out of my way and has exactly enough parking for the teacher, and nowhere near enough for voters) to cast my vote. Also, it involves standing in line for over an hour if try to go before work. Voting is already pretty darn inconvienent for everyone involved, and I'm not going to complain if someone figures out a way to make it much more convienent.

But...

[inerte]

... who said that this system, if ever implemented, will allow only votes made by the net valid? Even if the current draft of this proposal says so, it can be changed when fully released.

IMHO several voting systems can co-exist peacefully.

Re:But...

[SirSlud]

I never implied that it would only be available via the net. I was simply pointing out that this kind of system would improve accessibility and participation primarily to those who are already prosperous under the current political and economic conditions.

I was illustrating that these types of improvements tend to benifit those who are more-or-less happy with the way things are, and thus, it would do little to improve represention of those who seek or need the most radical changes in the political and economic climate.

All of this tends to lead to 'boiling points' where those in poor conditions completely lose faith in the system, as it tends to only focus on improving the lives or representation of those who are already well off, and simply garauntees that more pressure is allowed to build in the social 'fault line' until something dramatic happens.

Re:But...

[inerte]

Okay, maybe youd didn't mean, but it was implied. You didn't mentioned people would have the option to not vote over the internet.

If I made a mistake, I am sorry, it's the way I read your comment that made me assume what I said. If I am wrong, again, sorry.

But now I have to agree with envelope's comment. If you believe that different types of access to vote will create barriers for a better development of the democratic system, and a better choice of governament, then you should extend your argument to convince me why, why other facilities are different than the one possible using the internet.

I have to say, that if you want to break the status quo, it's not about HOW we choose our representants, but instead, like it has always been, about WHO you chooe.

Instead, if this situation must be changed, first convince everyone (from the bottom of the social pyramid) that voting is important (since in USA is optional), that they must vote, and, inform who are the candidates, why they must vote for whetever they choose, give them the ability to think and make they know that there are ways, peaceful ways, to change the system.

It reminds me of 'Don't give them food, teach them how to fish'.

Re:But...

[SirSlud]

> teach them how to fish

Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen." The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it. It's a harsh reality of life that improving one's material wealth above those around them is an individual choice, and that if said activity causes the disempowerment of the lower social classes, you'll have to pay for it in things other than money (such as convenience, time, self-discipline .. etc).

The car argument has been brought up as an example of why this gap already exists. Duly noted. It does, and look whats happening to the world. And this will only make it worse. That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.

Re:But...

[inerte]

Except for that the prevailing attitude is, "Don't give them food, and, okay, well, sure, teach them how to fish. But don't tax me for it. And I don't want to be the one to teach them. And make sure they have to buy their own fishing rod. And I don't want to be forced to fish less because now we have more fishermen."

Yes, maybe it is. But it doesn't have to be yours, and surely it's not mine (and I am not saying that it is yours either, just that I don't know you enought to confirm this or that). What I meant is that attacking ways to facilitate the wealth to choose the governament it's not the best way to help those on the pyramid's bottom to achieve a better life. It doesn't matter, IMHO, how you choose, but whom do you choose and why. Give people information and release them free.

The wealthy want their cake, and then they want to eat it.

No, everybody wants the cake. It's not only the wealth, this is a classic falacy of A = B, B = C, so A = C (whic is not true). It's not because the wealth have more cake, and they want more, and they have better ways to have it, that the poor won't get any piece, or that they are forbidden to try to get it.

But, I must note, I DO THINK that this happens, poor are forbidden to touch the cake (at least the sweet part of it). I just don't agree with the way you put it, since everyone wants the cake.

That whole "Well, things are already unequal, so what's wrong with making it a little bit more unequal" argument is self-affirming redderick, and I have no doubt that it only contributes to the social 'fault line' that has exploded many times in history before.

Me too. I am against what is preached. But the car argument IS NOT the reason why the world is fucked up. If so, we should not be allowed to vote. If we were to forbid every way to make people vote easier, we would have simply to have only one voter. If you present the argument that distance from the voting point is harmful to those far away from it, you will get to the point where the only possible solution is to have only one person casting their vote.

It's a bit strange, because practically, that's what happen. You have the 'one' media in favour of a candidate, the 'one' society sector in favor of a condidate, etc... Our socials desire to have interactions with other humans and the concessions that we allow to make these situations possible, generates an attrition to the final objective of a democracy.

Sadly, this has been said many times, since the governament wants to keep their power, and they have to get votes from people to do so, democracy is in fact a denial of the truth, the 'ultimate' truth. Because the power is always bending itself to allow the continuity of the status, and NOT pursuing a real, real close to, truth.

PS: I am enjoying having this conversation, and don't take anything personally ;-)

Re:But...

[Alsee]

classic falacy of A = B, B = C, so A = C (whic is not true).

Ouch. Ouch. Painfull!

I'm not sure what "classic falacy" you are trying to point out, but what ever it is, please find some other way to describe it.

Saying that if A=B and B=C then A=C is false is just really, really twisted . Chuckle.

-

Re:But...

[alex_ant]

Wait a minute...

It's not only the wealth, this is a classic falacy of A = B, B = C, so A = C (whic is not true).

Okay, perhaps I'm only making it obvious that I failed college precalculus, but if A = B, and B = C... then A does equal C, right? :)

Alex (English major)

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[CDWert]

Well....half of americans, %54 are on the internet.
The study has just been published. Noone said that would be the ONLY way to cast a vote either.

Now THAT in ITSELF is a larger percentage than voted in the last election. Demographics say more than HALF of that HALF is middle to lower income and minority.

Lemme guess, your either

Poor,

aCommunist

or a Democrat ?

If youre poor and have no car you already have to work harder to get to the polling place. So we make it easier and more accurate where we can. So that argument flies like a brick pig with wings.

How can more people voting cause "less political representation" ???? Just because the wealthy will vote for somethign YOU dont like dosent mean less representaiton, it means more people voting, more representation. Like I said Im guessing this was either a troll or...one of the above 3

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[envelope]

Give me a break.

Why don't we just have poll workers go door-to-door, so we don't discriminate against people with no car, or people who live 4 miles from the polling station instead of 2.

Ooh, I know, lets prevent Lexus from making technological advancements in their cars, because some people can't afford a car.

Life is always easier for some people than for others. That's just the way it is.

FUCK KEVIN MITNICK

[DonkeyHote]

HIS ASS should have been left to r0t in jail, media whore! FUCK KEVIN MITNICK killed crapflood loved fuck idle round donkey crapflood loved jesus killed idle round balls cocks round balls sucking loved fuck donkey balls loved loved idle balls kevin donkey killed donkey mitnick fuck crapflood fuck jesus round idle killed loved loved sucking crapflood loved donkey sweaty loved idle balls balls cocks jesus mitnick sucking fuck sucking killed fuck fuck balls jesus sucking cocks fuck crapflood fuck jesus idle donkey cocks balls fuck kevin jesus sweaty kevin mitnick idle mitnick donkey donkey killed jesus idle donkey balls killed idle balls sucking killed killed kevin balls fuck idle sweaty sucking jesus jesus loved sweaty mitnick donkey fuck balls balls donkey donkey sucking crapflood donkey donkey crapflood mitnick jesus jesus jesus fuck jesus idle cocks crapflood idle kevin idle mitnick idle jesus loved crapflood idle crapflood cocks mitnick balls sweaty jesus balls jesus cocks sucking crapflood round crapflood mitnick kevin donkey sucking sucking sweaty jesus round idle jesus jesus kevin cocks crapflood jesus crapflood sweaty mitnick mitnick mitnick round jesus kevin jesus sucking crapflood kevin idle fuck crapflood killed loved crapflood idle crapflood balls sucking round round kevin sucking crapflood sucking donkey sweaty round mitnick idle mitnick fuck mitnick mitnick fuck idle crapflood jesus killed sucking loved kevin cocks crapflood kevin balls balls round killed fuck idle donkey idle cocks loved jesus sweaty sweaty idle mitnick sweaty round crapflood round sucking sweaty round jesus mitnick killed round mitnick cocks donkey crapflood jesus balls sweaty crapflood sucking balls kevin idle jesus loved kevin donkey balls sweaty jesus donkey cocks loved cocks jesus donkey sweaty cocks jesus killed jesus balls balls cocks fuck jesus killed fuck crapflood mitnick mitnick donkey donkey balls sweaty idle idle donkey round mitnick sweaty donkey sweaty crapflood killed sucking crapflood idle balls kevin fuck balls killed loved mitnick kevin killed donkey kevin killed fuck idle fuck killed sucking mitnick sucking jesus crapflood mitnick idle loved sucking kevin round kevin balls killed sweaty round idle idle jesus kevin fuck killed fuck kevin donkey sucking mitnick jesus killed cocks sweaty sweaty round crapflood idle round idle balls kevin jesus jesus round balls donkey loved mitnick killed cocks loved mitnick sucking balls sucking balls idle jesus idle sucking sucking kevin donkey cocks cocks cocks donkey kevin killed loved fuck loved round cocks crapflood round idle balls sucking loved killed loved killed donkey jesus loved balls loved killed sweaty fuck killed round killed donkey sweaty idle idle loved killed sucking sucking mitnick loved jesus cocks kevin jesus kevin jesus sucking crapflood killed sucking balls donkey sucking fuck loved sweaty mitnick killed mitnick loved fuck idle donkey jesus jesus crapflood sucking idle round killed fuck killed loved cocks mitnick fuck sweaty round balls loved sucking killed loved jesus balls jesus loved crapflood mitnick sweaty cocks idle cocks fuck loved killed loved sweaty donkey jesus fuck loved mitnick cocks balls jesus cocks loved loved sucking sucking fuck donkey killed loved balls mitnick kevin round mitnick sucking donkey round balls cocks idle sweaty loved killed killed sweaty kevin sucking killed fuck mitnick idle mitnick loved idle killed fuck sucking cocks killed donkey cocks round crapflood donkey jesus jesus crapflood sweaty killed cocks balls loved donkey sucking crapflood crapflood mitnick killed cocks killed round round mitnick loved sucking killed donkey sucking killed jesus fuck mitnick crapflood crapflood jesus mitnick balls fuck balls balls killed sweaty round fuck fuck sweaty crapflood kevin donkey jesus round crapfl

And the next President is...

[Dimwit]

...Everyone voted for CowboyNeal!

Similar Problems

[fizban]

This reminds me of the problems we had at the Universty of Michigan a number of years back with the student government elections, which allowed students to vote online. The problem arose because candidates would walk through the dorms pumping their platform, knock on people's doors, log them into the voting website and show them how easy it was to vote for them. Obviously, quite an uproar came about because of this and I'm sure a similar situation would occur on the bigger scale elections.

Couldn't you just imagine the candidates to sending out their lackies to people's homes showing them how to vote online and how to click on their candidate's name and then click the submit button? I wouldn't put it by any political party to try this type of underhanded scheme, and I hope we never ever see that.

We won't get online voting for another 10-20 years and especially not until we can safeguard against "attacks" like these.

On a sidenote, I'd be interested to hear from any current Michigan folks to know if the student elections are still happening online.

Peace out.

Re:Similar Problems

[markmoss]

The problem arose because candidates would walk through the dorms pumping their platform, knock on people's doors, log them into the voting website and show them how easy it was to vote for them.

How about chartering a bus to bring people to the polls, and showing them a marked sample ballot during the ride? This is actually a fairly common practice. Where I grew up, a big real estate speculator funded a political organization that would pick up old folks from their homes, prime them to vote against anything and anyone that might raise real-estate taxes, and took them to the polls. In local elections, this could actually amount to 1/3 of the total vote. Or I heard about Democrats in Florida's larger cities sending busses out to the welfare housing, etc. But in one case they got the instructions wrong -- told their clients to be sure to make one punch on each page, but in this city the presidential candidates had been spread across two pages (to avoid the damned butterfly ballot), so anyone who followed instructions voted Gore and someone else for president...

The Democrats ability to shoot themselves in the foot, again and again, has always been amazing.

Getting back on topic -- we've always had party workers trying to be "helpful." Before voting was reformed with ballots never leaving the polling place, they could be even more helpful, giving people an already filled-in ballot to drop in the box. (To prevent any form of this, where I vote there is a tear-off serial number on the ballot. You come out of the booth, they check the number is the same you went in with, then tear it off and feed the ballot into the scanner.) The big trouble wasn't the helpfulness -- it was that too often the party workers were also paying bribes to get voters to cooperate. And that's the reason no form of voting from home (including absentee ballots) should be allowed except for a few percent of people who genuinely cannot make it to the polls.

Re:Similar Problems

[fizban]

Where I grew up, a big real estate speculator funded a political organization that would pick up old folks from their homes, prime them to vote against anything and anyone that might raise real-estate taxes...

Sounds like a republican "political organization" there. It happens on both sides, so don't get too slap happy with the Democrats. All politicians are wicked thieves who would sell their mothers' souls to get elected. It's just a matter of who they sell those souls to. For Repubs, it's big business and the rich. For Dems, it's working class organizations. For independents, it's... well, they really don't have any organizational backing, which is why hardly any of them win elections... Either way, "helping" people vote is not specific to any one party.

The whole problem here is that our population is dumb and the only way to get us some useful politicians in office is to educate the population. Unfortunately, education is also run by business, government and religious organizations who have self-serving agendas. Catch-22, so I guess it's pretty much hopeless...

Re:Similar Problems

[markmoss]

The Republicans were much too liberal for old Jasper... (This was about 1965-1980; many of the local Republicans, including the Governor of Michigan (Milliken), probably would have been Democrats except for family traditions dating back to the Civil War. This sort of balanced out the southern rednecks in Detroit who voted Democrat by reflex no matter how far that party strayed from their beliefs. Ain't politics fun!)

Experts? We don't need no stinkin' experts!

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> the computer science and public policy communities appear to agree

That's lovely, but the politicos will do whatever they like without regard to the experts.

Internet voting? I don't thinks so.

[Mighty-Troll]

After the last presidential election, I don't think we are ready for something like this. If they institute internet voting for this country, I'm packing all my stuff, closing out all my financial accounts and heading to New Zealand.

I think we need machine countable ballots, but also you must highlight your option in case it needs to manually reviewed. This should save us a couple months next time around ...

Har Har...

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be a great blow to a company I used to work for -- one of their larger projects when I left was a voting system in where you could go to a kiosk (say, at your local post office, mall, etc.) and cast your vote.

One of the main problems with internet voting

[Stickerboy]

Oh, come on, we have a couple of hundred thousand people in the US who can't figure out how to vote using a punch card with printed directions, for crying out loud. And now people are suggesting standardizing voting using a computer and an internet connection to make things easier? *chuckle*

Now, touch-screen computers at the polling station to simplify voting... that'd be a much better idea.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[demaria]

Those already exist. CNN was showing them last election; I think in a west coast state (Oregon?). Touch screen with pictures and text of the candidate, possibly in multiple languages.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[DonkeyHote]

perverted killed fisted
donkey molested perverted
perverted penetrated nuns
balls nuns anal
perverted nuns cocks
penetrated molested sucks
bible donkey balls
penetrated fisted god
killed jesus penetrated
god molested bible
killed sucks donkey
cocks anal sucks
sucks balls perverted
nuns fisted donkey
cocks molested killed
perverted nuns donkey
anal sucks bible
god perverted perverted
killed perverted killed
nuns perverted fisted
god god cocks
anal killed bible
penetrated sucks jesus
fisted balls jesus
bible killed god
balls god anal
balls molested anal
anal jesus molested
god balls donkey
perverted bible god
anal perverted nuns
fisted anal cocks
fisted nuns jesus
jesus molested nuns
god molested penetrated
perverted fisted jesus
sucks jesus nuns
fisted donkey sucks
balls anal sucks
nuns cocks sucks
anal killed balls
penetrated molested anal
god penetrated molested
anal fisted anal
cocks perverted penetrated
nuns penetrated nuns
god killed balls
killed balls anal
cocks donkey cocks
bible perverted cocks
killed anal nuns
donkey bible killed
molested perverted balls
fisted nuns nuns
sucks sucks perverted
perverted perverted cocks
bible cocks molested
god penetrated bible
donkey cocks bible
balls bible killed
perverted god anal
penetrated anal cocks
cocks fisted jesus
balls god perverted
cocks nuns nuns
penetrated jesus fisted
balls bible penetrated
donkey bible god
penetrated killed bible
penetrated killed donkey
molested perverted perverted
molested perverted penetrated
god fisted nuns
sucks balls anal
penetrated anal bible
penetrated perverted molested
jesus perverted god
cocks god penetrated
bible balls balls
donkey killed killed
cocks killed bible
god molested god
balls cocks perverted
cocks nuns jesus
nuns sucks donkey
fisted cocks killed
donkey killed nuns
sucks perverted nuns
balls god balls
killed sucks balls
anal penetrated killed
sucks molested god
bible cocks bible
anal penetrated balls
killed penetrated fisted
god donkey anal
sucks fisted fisted
cocks anal sucks
sucks bible cocks
god nuns balls
penetrated bible anal
molested molested molested
fisted god anal
sucks sucks god
penetrated jesus anal
bible bible molested
perverted perverted fisted
sucks donkey sucks
killed killed anal
molested fisted molested
fisted fisted cocks
donkey anal god
jesus molested balls
anal nuns fisted
jesus perverted fisted
sucks donkey sucks
balls perverted god
balls molested jesus
jesus perverted god
anal perverted cocks
jesus penetrated jesus
anal cocks god
killed sucks perverted
fisted donkey nuns
god nuns penetrated
jesus perverted killed
perverted god cocks
balls bible anal
donkey perverted nuns
killed nuns bible
killed nuns killed
nuns cocks penetrated
killed god killed
jesus bible perverted
god god god
donkey penetrated fisted
molested fisted anal
penetrated fisted perverted
cocks jesus cocks
god molested god
jesus killed anal
molested sucks killed
penetrated cocks molested
killed perverted nuns
anal bible killed
cocks cocks fisted
anal jesus penetrated
perverted penetrated jesus
nuns fisted god
donkey

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[=Egon=]

Actually, a computer terminal in polling stations is very usual where I live (Brazil). And it dont even need to have a touch screen monitor, it just uses a number keyboard with big keys.
It is much easier for the user than a punch card with dubious instructions and more realible than internet voting.
And we can have the results in just a few hours.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[Jason Earl]

The butterfly ballots are easy enough to use. The Democrats just realized that they were going to lose (by an amazingly small number of votes) and they hoped to "rectify" things. In cases like that it is always possible to find folks that will come forward and testify that the system was "too hard."

The one thing I like about a punch card system is that it is easy for the voter to verify that that their vote was cast correctly. They simply take the ballot out of the machine and make sure that the holes are in the right places. With computerized terminals it would be too easy for someone to write a one line Perl script that changed every third vote for their oponent into a vote for them. Now, if the computerized touch screen system also generated a physical ticket that the voter could verify (and which would be used for hand counts) then I am all for it. I am all for simplifying the system, but I want to be able to verify that no one is diddling the results.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[TheAwfulTruth]

Two problems with that.

1) I've programmed for touchscreens for almost 1 decade. None of them are 100% foolproof. Depending on the type all kinds of contaminants, dry air and wear can register incorrect selections. There'd have to be a more complicatd setup of "Are you sures" making the entire process slower and maybe even MORE error prone.

2) Secondarily, the idea of an electronic only system is also bad. At minimum, this touchscreen terminal had better punch out a physical card that can be recounted! There needs to be a hard record of every vote. Otherwise power failures, HD failures, both accidental and not, will lose votes FOREVER.

I believe that the only proper way to do it is mechanically with punch cards. Now the machines themselves can be greatly improved over the cheap ass pin systems most states use today. But I really don't want to use a computer to vote in any way and I've been a software engineer for 23 years! I know what there is to be afraid of.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't Oregon. We have been using vote-by-mail exclusively in the last few elections, so there are no polling places anymore.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[ocie]

Amen. What is this fascination with internet voting? We have had the technology for ~10 years to have automated computer voting by phone, but never did as far as I know.

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[spood]

At minimum, this touchscreen terminal had better punch out a physical card that can be recounted!

Hmm, having a computer print out a punch card...that sounds like real progress to me!

Re:One of the main problems with internet voting

[Cyno]

No technology is 100% foolproof. Network communications, local memory and disks have all taken many measures to ensure than data is 99.999% reliably managed. If you think your systems and networks will never corrupt your data you must not have much experience working on computers. Now a real computer professional realizes this and programs additional countermeasures to doublecheck their work. For example instead of storing your votes as boolean values they would store them as 'yes' or 'no' strings and test the strings later for its value. You would offer the user a quick summary of their votes after they've input them all into your system so they have the oportunity to double check as well. You would probably use a web-based tool utilizing encryption and monitoring all traffic to and from your nets. Anything that isn't directed at port 80 or appears suspicious should have our Secret Agents showing up at their door asking questions, etc. Unfortunately our secret service agents are too busy busting kids for chatting on IRC and sharing music.

I mean come on, we're running the economy on these systems I think we could trust them for something as worthless as voting. Its not like our votes really count for anything anyway. I didn't vote for Bush, did you? ;)

Fizban, STFU

[DonkeyHote]

killed idle crapflood
killed fizban donkey
fizban balls fizban
sweaty sweaty crapflood
loved killed STFU
donkey STFU round
sweaty cocks donkey
balls fizban STFU
round jesus donkey
cocks loved sweaty
donkey crapflood donkey
cocks sucking loved
sweaty cocks jesus
balls STFU sucking
cocks jesus loved
crapflood fizban crapflood
loved humperdink killed
fizban donkey cocks
STFU crapflood donkey
idle jesus killed
donkey sucking idle
sucking donkey sweaty
STFU humperdink donkey
donkey killed donkey
fizban round sweaty
round humperdink round
crapflood balls idle
loved fizban donkey
crapflood jesus crapflood
humperdink fizban cocks
humperdink fizban humperdink
idle STFU donkey
round sweaty balls
idle jesus round
idle donkey loved
fizban STFU loved
round donkey loved
idle round crapflood
loved sucking killed
donkey balls sweaty
cocks balls jesus
fizban sucking fizban
loved fizban round
donkey STFU loved
killed balls STFU
balls idle sucking
fizban jesus balls
cocks sweaty jesus
crapflood STFU idle
humperdink jesus idle
sweaty crapflood killed
sucking sweaty donkey
jesus sweaty humperdink
jesus crapflood sweaty
loved STFU crapflood
sucking idle STFU
jesus humperdink donkey
sucking round cocks
loved crapflood balls
STFU balls killed
cocks round cocks
jesus jesus humperdink
humperdink donkey jesus
cocks fizban balls
sweaty jesus round
jesus cocks loved
STFU round STFU
crapflood jesus humperdink
humperdink fizban sweaty
round jesus jesus
balls sweaty killed
idle donkey jesus
fizban sweaty killed
loved STFU balls
balls loved loved
sucking fizban idle
fizban killed round
jesus balls cocks
sucking idle round
jesus idle jesus
killed crapflood donkey
jesus killed sweaty
sweaty sucking sweaty
killed sucking sucking
cocks round jesus
loved fizban STFU
balls killed humperdink
idle killed donkey
round killed humperdink
jesus idle balls
balls sweaty sweaty
round STFU balls
round cocks killed
jesus sweaty fizban
sucking balls loved
fizban humperdink loved
sweaty humperdink killed
round crapflood cocks
sweaty jesus balls
crapflood cocks killed
sweaty loved killed
killed balls cocks
humperdink sweaty donkey
balls sucking loved
killed cocks balls
crapflood crapflood balls
donkey sweaty fizban
crapflood round idle
round sucking killed
STFU balls jesus
killed jesus fizban
fizban crapflood sucking
sucking donkey crapflood
cocks fizban loved
donkey cocks killed
sucking donkey STFU
cocks cocks sweaty
sucking sucking humperdink
sucking balls humperdink
idle jesus loved
humperdink fizban fizban
sweaty jesus donkey
round donkey round
round humperdink sucking
killed killed round
sucking fizban crapflood
loved cocks cocks
sweaty donkey fizban
round loved killed
loved crapflood jesus
killed jesus jesus
donkey cocks loved
killed sweaty sucking
humperdink loved sucking
sucking fizban balls
killed sucking cocks
cocks jesus STFU
balls sweaty cocks
sucking donkey sweaty
loved humperdink fizban
humperdink idle killed
idle balls crapflood
killed cocks balls
sucking sweaty loved
loved idle jesus
idle cocks crapflood
idle killed humperdink
donkey crapflood loved
balls STFU STFU
loved cocks cocks
balls humperdink loved
fizban idle donkey
round donkey STFU
STFU crapflood humperdink
idle jesus jesus
cocks cocks killed
sucking jesus crapflood
cocks loved round
round idle humperdink
balls cocks loved
sweaty donkey fizban
idle sucking round
fizban round crapflood
fizban cocks fizban
jesus jesus idle
idle humperdink humperdink
killed loved cocks
balls donkey crapflood
humperdink crapflood sucking
cocks idle cocks
cocks fizban sweaty
fizban killed donkey
loved cocks STFU
cocks humperdink balls
loved jesus crapflood
humperdink balls cocks
loved sweaty fizban
sucking cocks humperdink
balls crapflood donkey
balls idle crapflood
balls jesus sweaty
humperdink balls sucking

*cough*

[Schwamm]

Grammar check...

"... all too true." would be the appropriate way to finish that.

If it'd be even half as funny as on Dilbert...

[Shiny Metal S.]

...than I really think we should go for it.

Read the article.... then think

[MosesJones]

You can never verify the privacy of the voters, because they may choose to tell their vote

Two points on this

1) You can lie "Sure I voted for you Mr Big Gun"

and the second is that this isn't the issue the issue is Mr Big Gun standing next to you as you put the X on the sheet making _sure_ that you vote for him.

Not sure which countries allow people the day off to vote either.

Imagine managing the digital signature for everyone, BUT STILL ENSURING ITS ANONYMOUS.

The problems are huge, and they are right to reject it, especially in light of the problems of access to the internet.

Re:Read the article.... then think

[King Of Chat]

Imagine managing the digital signature for everyone, BUT STILL ENSURING ITS ANONYMOUS.

Not sure how it is in the US, but in the UK ballot papers are individually numbered and can (theoretically) be traced back to the individual voter using the information on the polling card (which you must present). This is, apparently, to ensure that Mr I R Bukkake doesn't vote twice.

Admittedly, since this information is only stored on paper, it would be far harder to trace than a digital signature. It is still possible though.

What's with this Jon Katz'ish post?

[Uttles]

OK, let's not categorize this as "elections on the internet." A more accurate subject would be "voting via web pages." What most people want, and I have asked, as well as observed, is an electronic voting booth. These devices will hopefully reduce human error, they will produce a physical paper ballot for each voter, and they will send the totals instantly over a VPN over the internet to a central collection point. That is technically voting over the internet, even though individual citizens still have to go out and hit the voting booths. Our elections will greatly benefit from such devices using the internet, and it is in the works. I posted a story not too long ago about Rhode Island's plans to work on such a system (rejected of course.) Slashdot admins, please watch what you say. I thought JonKatz was the only one who went off the handle with wild claims and broad misconceptions...

There will always be problems

[Styros]

There's plenty of voting fraud going on with the current system. You can't tell me that the "pregnant chad/hanging chad" system of voting is much better. Besides if they're worried about how to properly identify someone, then take a look at the E-File system being used by the IRS. I'm quite sure that the IRS won't stand for being hacked.

Could be done, but it won't happen.

[Hostile17]

Where there is a will, there is a way. If we wanted to setup online voting, we could, but the powers that be don't want it, so it isn't going to happen. The technology is there, the problem, as always is with people. When people are at home, how do you know thier abusive spouse isn't watching them, thier boss, or Union chairmen. The only way to provide any reasonable privacy is to provide a place to do it.

This just in...

[govtcheez]

... please welcome the new President of the United States of America: 1337 haX0r d00d!

BAREFACED ARROGANCE: BUSH SPEECH INFLAMES MIDDLE E

[Anonymous Coward]

In Cairo, the newspaper Al-Ahram, an instrument of the government, claimed in its editorial that "It was an instinctive speech and Bush did not learn the lessons of 11th September". It continued: "Bush only instigates terrorism. With this speech, he gives good motives for some to continue with terrorism".

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, declared that "Bush is trying to take public attention away from the Middle East and is preparing American public opinion to continue to support Israel in its brutal oppression of the Palestinian nation".

An official in Baghdad accused Washington of state terrorism and denied claims that Iraq was a danger, although President Saddam Hussein has long decided not to comment on statements made by George Bush, deeming them unworthy of being taken into consideration.

The Deputy General Secretary of the Arab League, Said Kamal, is of the personal opinion that "Bush should show signs of greater wisdom. He ignores the calls for prudence launched by the European Union and I cannot believe that he does not know that Israel is on the list of countries which have weapons of mass destruction".

Israel has around 200 nuclear warheads. These comments prove how badly received were the words of George Bush in the region. Phrases such as "axis of evil", "we know their true nature" and "the USA is at war" and sentences like "I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer. The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most dangerous weapons" are no more than hype, sausage-factory remarks designed to whip up hysteria. This they have done at home, but there are good reasons for the hail of criticism from abroad, and not just from Moslem nations.

Speaking inexplicably of an "axis of evil" between Pyongyang, Teheran and, predictably, Baghdad, George Bush launched into a diatribe which became more and more ridiculous by the sentence, so replete was it with barefaced arrogance.

Understandably concentrating on the theme of international terrorism, the September 11th atrocity naturally remaining fresh in the minds of all Americans, George Bush failed to rise above the occasion and present the vision of a world statesman. Even British newspaper editorials derided the speech as being a delusion, never close to reality.

Concentrating his venom on three regimes deemed hostile to the USA, only because they refuse to kow-tow to Washington, and practically limiting his mention of terrorist organisations to Hammas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, organisations which pose a threat to Israel but not the USA, President Bush made it clear that Washington remains biased and tendentious in its Middle East policy.

While it is right to condemn international terrorism, since attacks such as that on September 11th must never happen again, George Bush failed to mention the right-wing paramilitary organisations perpetrating acts of extreme barbarity in South America, organisations which are covertly supported by Washington, he failed to mention the IRA, which for years was funded by NORAID, based in the USA, he failed to mention the terrorist attacks in Angola by UNITA, armed for many years by the USA and he failed to mention the state terrorism carried out on a daily basis by Israel, against civilians, in the lands which Israel stole from them.

Singling out almost without exception Moslem countries and organisations, this speech was a cheap shot at America's traditional demons, even if the demonology is an invention of Washington.

The reason Iran is not favourable towards Washington is because the CIA operations to support the regime of the hated Shah Reza Pahlevi, who was totally out of touch with his people, gave the United States a hostile image among the people of this country. Fearing a growth in fundamentalist Islamism in the region, Washington then pumped Iraq, then the good student, full of weaponry to see it through its ten-year war against its neighbour.

Saddam Hussein having been pumped so full of armour that he became a danger, it was then necessary to incite Kuwait to made alterations to its oil policy which were ruinous to the Iraqi economy, forcing Iraq to take action. The massive intrusion in Iraq's internal affairs over the last decade have naturally turned this country against the USA also.

Finally, it is not beyond the realms of the imagination that Pyongyang is angered at Washington because of the military support it gave to its former enemy, South Korea.
Complaining that all three countries have weapons of mass destruction is valid only if these countries are aiming to use these weapons against the USA.

There is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort. The reason why these countries have weapons of mass destruction is to defend themselves against Washington's permanent interference and after the recent incidents in the Gulf and Yugoslavia, crises created and managed by Washington, who can blame them?

Wrong Track

[delta echo]

I think they are on the wrong track with internet voting. We should be casting votes digitally, but not over the internet. What about touch screens that store the vote on some form of media in a kiosk or something of that sort. Should be pretty difficult to mess up voting if you touch "Gore - D" and the screen makes you confirm it. It might be a little tedious, but it gets the job done.

Hank the angry drunken dwarf for president!!!!

[Unknown Poltroon]

WHuhu. ANd if you dont rememebr the reference, its not that important.

STFU you crybaby Democratic jackass!

[Dead Penis Bird]

Al Gore did not create the Internet! It's a ridiculous liberal myth.

Everytime I see this fabrication, I want to vomit.

Let me quote Richard Wiggins from the peer-reviewed journal First Monday:

What Gore Said

Although Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, he did discuss his role in Internet development in an interview with Wolf Blitzer of Cable News Network. The interview took place on March 9, 1999 during CNN's "Late Edition" show. Specifically, what Gore said was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

A cynic might observe that "creating the Internet" and "inventing the Internet" are tantamount to the same exaggeration. But let's look at the entire quote in the context of the colloquy with Blitzer. Here is Blitzer's entire query to Gore:

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

Clearly, Blitzer is asking Gore to offer an explanation of how he differs as a politician from other politicians in general, and his rival at the time, Bill Bradley, in particular. Here is Gore's entire response to Blitzer's question:

GORE: Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.

Mr. Wiggins observes:

Gore's recent statement that as a member of Congress he had taken the initiative in "creating the Internet" drew hoots of laughter, especially from Republicans. Gore has long been a promoter of the Internet, but he didn't invent it. Trying to keep a straight face, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott quickly issued a news release claiming that he invented the paper clip. This was not the first time Gore has overreached. A year ago Gore told reporters that he and his wife, Tipper, at the time when they were college sweethearts, were the inspiration for the novel "Love Story." That came as news to the befuddled author, Erich Segal.

The editorialist saw the Internet statement as part of a pattern of hype, of Gore overstating his own accomplishments. Like Lott, other politicians saw Gore's statement as fodder for ridicule. Dan Quayle took up the bait, quoted as saying, "If Gore invented the Internet, then I invented Spell-Check."

So, before you stupid Liberals and Democrats start taking credit for the Internet, just remember, It's not true!

Re:STFU you crybaby Democratic jackass!

[real_b0fh]

> So, before you stupid Liberals and Democrats start taking credit for the Internet, just remember, It's not true!

Dude, this is the funnies thread ever!

Who gives a fuck to the so called "Internet"? it is just a tcp/ip network which happens to range worldwide. In my point of view, it is inevitable that as technology matures, we would have a worldwide ip network eventually.

So, this Internet mith and hype ppl can kiss my ass. What a bunch of retards.

(mongoloid reply, please, mr donkey ;-)

That would make it too easy to vote.

[MongooseCN]

Voting on the Internet would allow more people to vote creating a more accurate representation of the countries ideas. Politicians don't want voters from all over the country voting, they just want the voters that support them to vote.

As for people saying that voting on the Internet would create a bias because only rich people could vote is just plain untrue. You will still have the plain old voting booths, and if not, just replace those voting booths in the town hall with terminals to log on the Internet. You don't have to own a computer to vote.

Re:That would make it too easy to vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting on the Internet would allow more people to vote creating a more accurate representation of the countries ideas.

Oh God. I'd much rather have an accurate representation of the ideas of people who care enough to get off their ass and go to the polls.

Re:That would make it too easy to vote.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! Not to mention that internet voting would further skew voting results twards the privledged (Those that own computers in their house). I mean if you don't own a computer and your too lazy to walk to the polls (Or MAIL your vote in!) then I doubt you're going to walk to the library to use the internet terminal there... So the only segment of people that will increase in voter turn out are the lazy and well off.

anonymous online voting...

[bob@dB.org]

is an extremly interesting subject. have a look at for example http://www.radwin.org/michael/projects/voting.html

An untraceable, universally verifiable voting scheme

Recent electronic voting schemes have shown the ability to protect the privacy of voters and prevent the possibility of a voter from being coerced to reveal his vote. These schemes protect the voter's identity from the vote, but do not do so unconditionally. In this paper we apply a technique called blinded signatures to a voter's ballot so that it is impossible for anyone to trace the ballot back to the voter. We achieve the desired properties of privacy, universal verifiability, convenience and untraceability at the expense of receipt-freeness.

Re:anonymous online voting...

[Saeculorum]

Unfortunately, the link is slightly misdone. Try http://www.radwin.org/michael/projects/voting.html

Re:anonymous online voting...

[bob@dB.org]

Unfortunately, the link is slightly misdone. Try http://www.radwin.org/michael/projects/voting.html

i blame konqoror :-( this is posted in Mozilla 0.9.8, sweet :-)

The secret ballot is not obscure.

[treat]

The secret ballot is not an obscure issue. It is one of the most important aspects of the US voting system. Perhaps it would not be so important without our history of every manner of vote fraud imaginable. The secret ballot prevents coercion of voters by threat of force, losing their job, or any other means by which one person can inappropriately influence another. This must never be compromised, and would be a serious issue if it were. We need developments that decrease the chance for vote fraud, not increase the chance.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

using computers at poll stations...doesn't discriminate against those without access to the Internet at home, or disproportionately empower those that do.

Sure, it does. It makes it easier for those with access at home. People who typically fail to vote because they don't feel like going out and waiting in line can do it in minutes from the comfort of their own home.

Every election, you hear tidbits like, Republicans tend to win on rainy days because their supporters are more likely to have their own vehicle and thus more willing to go out in it. This would multiply that effect.

Security issues?

[wurp]

But, concludes Stewart, "my hunch is that even when the security issues get solved, Internet voting is going to be a niche."

This is an idiotic statement. When the security issues get resolved, who the hell wouldn't vote over the internet instead of having to go out to the voting booth?

And it seems to me that the security issues could be easily resolved by the government issuing us public/private key pairs. We would all go in somewhere at our leisure, verify our identity and get a doohickey that plugs into the PC via USB, serial port, or whatever. The doohickey would have a public & private key in it, and wouldn't provide a way of getting the private key out. But it would provide an interface for signing any data sent to it and returning it to you. They could just note who got what doohickey (and correlate the public key with your social security # in a central repository), and now you have easy electronic identification, signatures, and the ability to send private info. Of course, I wouldn't trust anything like that for my own encryption (FBI backdoor, anyone?) but it should be fine for voting. It just signs your vote with your private key, encrypts it with the government's public key, and sends it on its way. I should be able to log into a specific site on the internet and see my vote (encrypted with my public key, so others can't see it) so I can go contest it if it was somehow falsified.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Re:Security issues?

[karnal]

I punch you and steal your doohickey.

Or I wait by your mailbox and retrieve it from your mail.

Yea, not the best 2 scenarios... I think the first step should be to improve the vote's chance of getting counted. I don't think there is any realistic way that you can have people vote from home at this point in time.....

Re:Security issues?

[wurp]

That's easy; let people report that it was taken. Then you go contest the web vote. And that's why I said you go somewhere to pick it up, not get it from your mailbox.

I do agree, though, that it's much more important to have accurate vote-taking methods before we worry about voting via the internet. But, that said, I think the method I described would be much more accurate on average than our current voting methods...

Re:Security issues?

[wurp]

Hmm, to elaborate on letting people report that your doohickey was taken: you report that it was taken, then it gets deactivated and you contest your vote (so you have to go vote in person, votes from home must be in say two weeks before 'in person' votes, and must be contested at least a week before). Then you can request a new doohickey; the old one is useless.

Re:Security issues?

[markmoss]

I would love to see that ID dongle become common for many other purposes, but not for voting from home. Consider this scenario:

Knock, Knock.
"Hello"
"We're from the Cosa Nostra party, and we're here to 'help' you vote."

--- later ---

"You understand that you can go to the election commission and contest this vote. Do you also understand that we'll hear about it and blow up your house?"

Re:Security issues?

[wurp]

Hmm, good point, for which I have no answer :( Sounds like a social problem rather than an internet problem, but a killer nonetheless. Bummer.

Re:Security issues?

[markmoss]

More seriously: secret balloting and several other security measures were instituted because of widespread vote-buying in 19th century America. Early in the century, party workers could accompany you to the polls and "help" you vote. (It did solve the problem of illiteracy. But if you actually _want_ illiterates voting, you paste pictures of the candidates onto piggybanks and give each voter one token to drop into the slot.) Later on, when ballots were marked in private booths, it was common for party workers to pass out pre-marked ballots, and pay the voter when they returned with the blank ballot from the polls. So now, ballots have serial numbers on a little tear-off piece; when I come out of the booth, they check the number matches the blank ballot they gave me, then tear it off.

Now if they only had a way to detect dead people voting... Although the local poll workers might resent that, they're all over 80 and it's getting hard to tell the difference. ;-)

Re:Security issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Re:Security issues?

[wurp]

Yet another good point, and an interesting piece of information. Makes sense, though.

I'm even a Luddite here

[Master Of Ninja]

Hello. I have to say that I can't even favour use of the internet for elections (and I mean elections in voting for your government sense). I have to admit here I'm actually someone who would resist the technology.

People are saying voting over the internet, but I would say this was insecure. I believe voting for the government is so important that you really have to minimise the security risks. There are problems with manual voting as it is. But i'm still happier with it than internet voting. When I think voting, I'm now assuming all the computer are ones owned by the government kept in central locations for public voting. I can't see voting from home being too good.

I'm going to throw some ideas out here - if you can find a reason against them, i would love to here (this isn't a challenge, but I'd love to see if someone could put my mind at ease over voting).

(1) I would think that the internet was insecure that you had to use a VPN to allow proper voting. Even then I would still like a closed system where all the power is in government hands.
(2) The system has to have power backups just in case someone starts to tamper with the election. This would be essential in "unstable" areas which are about to vote.
(3) Who controls the system? I would say it would have to be open and free (yeaahhh! - obligatory slashdot herd cheer) with anyone, and I mean anyone, being able to get to the source code. That leaves the fact that the binary produced from the code has to be verified. You'll need qualified people to do this, which costs even more cash.

I also thought about electoral lists, but either way (computer or manual voting) they can still be tampered, although it might be easier on a computer. I just think that allowing people to see the process prevents as much tampering as could be done if people managed to attack the "box" which controls the lists. When i say a "box" I don't mean the central lists, but the one PC which contains the list at the local school where voting could take place.

I do want to believe, but something keeps on telling me that we should keeps things as they are for the now, and restrict this kind of voting to places where it doesn't make too much of a difference. If they could test it in school polls and then corporate polls, and it was shown to be foolproof I wouldn't mind, but I'm very skeptical (the theme of this whole post). I wouldn't mind if they tested this in government opinion polls, where they realise that error could occur, and that it might not make too much of an impression on the governing of the country (i.e. discard the poll if the results are within 5% of each other or something).

Anyway, that's my rant over for the day. Later

The GOP stole my alien love crystals

[DonkeyHote]

perverted bible fisted
fisted god perverted
nuns bible sucks
sucks perverted penetrated
killed killed god
fisted nuns perverted
penetrated cocks jesus
fisted sucks god
jesus god penetrated
perverted nuns cocks
molested anal molested
balls nuns donkey
penetrated nuns molested
killed anal fisted
anal cocks god
donkey donkey bible
god balls sucks
penetrated jesus penetrated
balls perverted sucks
fisted bible perverted
balls nuns sucks
anal jesus nuns
molested fisted god
perverted jesus donkey
cocks god cocks
killed god anal
penetrated nuns anal
molested nuns jesus
killed bible balls
god donkey balls
fisted bible anal
balls killed god
jesus jesus cocks
molested donkey anal
donkey bible penetrated
sucks balls penetrated
killed god donkey
bible donkey molested
god cocks anal
balls perverted killed
bible molested fisted
god donkey penetrated
nuns god bible
balls penetrated jesus
bible donkey cocks
sucks bible killed
cocks bible penetrated
balls anal donkey
cocks cocks killed
balls penetrated jesus
fisted killed jesus
sucks penetrated killed
sucks killed cocks
molested molested cocks
fisted penetrated balls
donkey molested killed
killed cocks fisted
sucks sucks god
god molested nuns
donkey fisted perverted
penetrated god perverted
sucks sucks cocks
sucks donkey bible
nuns nuns fisted
anal donkey jesus
killed sucks fisted
anal fisted donkey
fisted donkey molested
donkey balls nuns
god perverted cocks
killed god balls
anal nuns nuns
killed donkey fisted
jesus anal balls
bible anal anal
jesus balls killed
jesus bible molested
molested god god
sucks donkey perverted
nuns balls sucks
anal molested nuns
jesus fisted penetrated
fisted balls anal
donkey perverted fisted
perverted penetrated fisted
god molested perverted
penetrated penetrated nuns
sucks penetrated cocks
fisted balls perverted
bible molested killed
molested donkey god
jesus god molested
bible bible anal
killed bible cocks
donkey penetrated killed
penetrated donkey jesus
perverted balls god
fisted molested balls
sucks jesus sucks
perverted fisted sucks
balls nuns perverted
fisted perverted anal
nuns cocks cocks
perverted molested nuns
penetrated anal anal
balls god bible
perverted donkey balls
molested killed donkey
perverted anal anal
sucks god molested
nuns nuns sucks
molested donkey donkey
cocks sucks sucks
molested balls penetrated
cocks cocks sucks
cocks donkey killed
bible jesus penetrated
donkey cocks fisted
perverted anal killed
perverted killed perverted
nuns jesus god
cocks fisted killed
balls killed molested
cocks donkey cocks
balls fisted nuns
anal sucks fisted
fisted god god
donkey bible donkey
donkey bible sucks
fisted donkey fisted
molested balls bible
cocks killed cocks
killed cocks fisted
perverted bible sucks
balls penetrated cocks
penetrated nuns anal
perverted fisted cocks
nuns cocks nuns
anal balls fisted
fisted anal perverted
balls nuns cocks
bible sucks molested
sucks nuns sucks
nuns donkey nuns
penetrated god killed
killed penetrated molested
penetrated perverted cocks
perverted cocks nuns
donkey jesus sucks
fisted

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Red Rocket]

> Geez. Nobody ever said life was fair.

No. But the Constitution says that voting MUST be.
Easing access to the polls for those who can afford the technology equates directly to greater representation for those voters than for voters who don't have the skids greased for them.

why not?

[mrroot]

The ability of the internet to handle large-scale voting in a fair and secure fashion is here today.

Meatspace blues.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh My God ! You mean I'm still going to have to leave the house every four years ?

Wouldn't Have Helped in 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone really think the people confused by the punch ballots in Florida would be any less intimidated by a computer? Not a chance.

Simpler is better

[s20451]

In Canada, national elections are handled by a nonpartisan Federal agency, Elections Canada. Everyone across the country gets the same kind of ballot, a simple card with circles beside the names where you make your "X". No punch cards, machines, or other fancy things that can go wrong or confuse people into voting for Pat Buchanan. It's only a coincidence that the same party keeps winning elections. I swear!

If you want electronic voting, the best idea is probably the system used by the City of Toronto in last fall's mayoral elections -- the ballots were paper, but the counting was electronic. To vote, you filled in a region beside a candidate's name, much like those computerized multiple choice tests. All the counting was done 1 hour after polls closed, and they still had paper records to verify the results.

Re:Simpler is better

[Kwantus]

raht on bruddah (eh)! I was going to say, much of the world mistrusts mechanized balloting as being way too easy to fiddle. (No need to mention recent history in america's dongle.)

but - one thing i dislike about our (canadian) balloting is that it's so not condorcet. I would love to see a ranking ballot adopted - but i can't see any way of tallying a reliable result in less than four years without little black boxen... and NO way to make it trustworthy. And personally, technologist or no, i see more `democracy' in a system people may grumble about but can understand and trust over of a `theoretically perfect' system most electors would think is a steaming pile of obfuscation machinated to crank out the outcome preset by the elite.

Good....

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I recently did some contract consulting in Florida, and considering how badly they handled paper ballots, I suspect they'd REALLY screw up Internet elections.

Just an observation.

so what?

[sintetika]

wow .. i wonder how long it took them to figure this one out.
hmm... well shouldn't the focus be a better equipment at the booth? i think modern technology can provide a better and more reliable solution than what we have today.

Can't throw them away

[ehiris]

And you can't throw any of them away because the system can be made foolproof.

Re:Text voting - how to vote example

[Procrasti]

+1 vt 4 tny blair pls. thnks, cyal8r 8)

The voting booth is a filter.

[joe630]

People who don't have enough will to go to their polling place and pull a lever shouldn't be voting.

Internet voting is a dumb idea.

What about absentee voting?

[nsayer]

They can't insure that a party hack isn't standing behind absentee voters watching them fill in their ballots from their kitchen tables. What's the difference?

All that said, I think the security questions are a lot more important. It's probably a lot easier for dead former Chicago residents to vote over the Internet than... Oh wait...

CIA DOCUMENT

[DonkeyHote]

dk aqqf qyou
uvjj b xge i k bu
jle aurks nk e w
yga v q d i aac ep
sn bh cfmkw kn w
kpcm ywjqu xre
qnhlb vla eoi j
e fx esnni utfe
d dt vykrp dcm r
u x pibw ecot e n
s r ukyes yot tr
ib ttwa fwl ith
d relx a g shqmm
c jcrsq v by l rf
hn taqj o pfro i
u i mkgkr yh b hd
ic xt xd da nyyv
l rkn itnjd vaa
in gn a yoncg lf
cq wheh p y pfn v
ht qfh lnsbx ua
oyf gfvca svke
prb yrio w tdvk
pebnr iuws tar
gt otqi wdl uxe
scp gptx a wi kk
e m kgsnb gc s sq
q edqp jy ive or
qug bldjr tl ag
mw cicjt ptx vw
wt it kpxjl fqx
av tleqh d y gy g
is x uyf mon we l
dtap ut k ptrci
taf ww ffinr yf
mfuv p q pf vvm f
o kik tj mp lwih
k xb uhddr b y ku
v wf jgr j qy e vw
xf g tpt uiw vg n
stik rkf oyvs p
k nykp jdsex xg
f xlxd dhsgx iy
ki b fwoce gbya
ksbt m icwd bkk
d vxhx otdxg fn
sx mxv kjskv l v
ve kj nuc yyai e
htj vqubb f n kl
iq gpmxw tcuvt
ip i jovtw jddu
memls h kl qvby
icad xig ohq mf
mr pdl aob mnsi
u fhng ct cmqo t
djk ilsjb ymdl
x ixe ersk lqyo
k ljuho dyvri o
l wqx o ihv fes b
jb wfut jwk etq
lbggl a dpfi bi
ytr qwx jyvrm u
nsw dyaym adtk
jkco se qsvnn c
s wy ngqno trm r
w h r orbqc plnt
x aec kj dg cclj
uy dxsa um dinf
wmt hlw ck n bps
tf wcvve m loxv
no ygxv k xutlk
qx jm vyrjp wmw
ms iyryg ewexk
tqxx mvnbm bf t
g oikp rpjm t hu
lmo pryd ghq lv
nm pbc mdf wk hb
sgo iq ggstb o q
kcb m vccej ur c
ifyi lfvan uq d
e hi ngo uid xps
qh bdmhc stppm
t kaai unic fj y
qii t u w avxtq w
bvyb kfdw b irv
sf nqp dtwdd ib
jx jfusv lykjm
y bmil muwts an
wk kdbt xr qlrj
iql lkx xx cfpc
e cv hfxqf qvb e
lfpa cs tn xwba
m jjwxl e ivgln
q ks nnd in lujc
y glbn xgpo dd t
lmoyo bd dcxa a
p ny kacxp wtqg
s db dc v q lq c b t
miwy uid jhkt b
aics oift xisu
yi v g x muijx ak
eoa og cqady pd
cju ev ai ua l ls
seakf j l enf bt
y ad dro t bbr u v
ewam pqypm af o
opvb y ao srsst
hb yiasv ql ngc
e fhxv l gs xnph
x ny dntqx gg ci
uw qpfio hfjlr
y w aop iltof rt
q ykv lr lmm suq
tb t u ypwk vboe
vjec kebnj r xk
gjs mhfqn jes l
u c gpt jf nkvo m
tl lmdsl ufws x
d dsxwr tan qu c
oeve qy remh ri
bhu gtoef wrea
m gc j ryto fwru
h gf gnj v cugah
lvrn c wcx pfu r
l fask ye lqt iy
t wxt wx m lifpn
fmmr hukv wri v
r g wcgwx hmge i
x k x r f khb b a ac
btbr wkydb x bx
rw p xrs ewb xdk
q hgbxd xu ircg
oj a ovle f ios u
yq elsqp xavgt
xn um wpfk jd bq
xx gdf pp aqi ao
xs mcr ol okpxq
rvh jdlet tf ko
lxvx hrytm vmq
cdx gu cviuk cj
rd yayec ni r ca
eb napoa hldg s
amym uj lalrn q
qa rvjco uhyd l
plws y nwntf vs
exd wjm jwwcw c
nfse u l jli ko k
y obykq nxrdu o
cwt psjw k wm qh
d ihc a sqruj fp
fkjo x m v priyr
t c cjni e s l qid
w h xndf gklg ip
tw rtun iclw gj
xs ka sswvb lwd
xjymg q g u xapq
b kk k sor utye p
js nfllq vycyw
fftgi wgok fqj
u qokvj dlwla p
qgbn kbvyb tlm
dmv khig iflld
ggweo xxwhr hd
ywoi xw aqhqy k
udfr kmeju ace
k d n m syx kbda k
ppqty flebi ib
mc c ejy rlm edo
fh wkdid b qp mm
rm ssfi arkab o
pw letne egmk q
ekd oi ude jn l n
smx iqxcv gba q
qpqn fi puv ub a
escp gso r k ym r
cjr t c idls ktt
bavsq viawe nq
elx xj pgtgb ak
bv exjtw tr me n
e ijlm kstsu cn
beq qgwfb d pgb
qx acw rck m

just use Keyosks at voting stations

[the_2nd_coming]

i think that is the best way to balot folks, that way, you can get sections presented to you one at a time, allowing larger buttons, and less confusion, not tomention you could standardise on all interfaces, and even keep a running tally so you can just release the results as soon a the polling station is closed.

to make it safe from crackers, just make them so that they have no connection to the internet, the polsers can just hit the results button on their master station at the end of the night, and get a print out of the numbers, then call whom even with their results.

Damn, I'm all out of mod points...

[Uttles]

Otherwise, you'd get a +1. Everyone has been pointing to that, but noone has acknowledged the fact that absentee ballots are not monitored at all, and any number of coercive tactics could take place with them. Maybe internet voting and campaign reform laws will have to come about at the same time. If candidate X doesn't have the money available from large corporate sponsors, then they can't afford to send their chronies out to force people to vote for them.

Following my train of thought I came up with another idea. Let's say 20 years from now the election process is changed radically. Candidates are not allowed to advertise on TV, only by registering with the www.vote.gov webpage and having their personal info site, with links to all sorts of information about them. Online town hall meetings and debates will be their only time to speak to people live. Each citizen will be mailed a one time use USB dongle and if they plug it into their computer, then browse to their candidate's page and click on "vote for me" then BAM, that's it, they've voted. Seems easy enough to me. It would open the door to some interesting candidates.

Re:Damn, I'm all out of mod points...

[BreakWindows]

Everyone has been pointing to that, but noone has acknowledged the fact that absentee ballots are not monitored at all, and any number of coercive tactics could take place with them.

True, but absentee ballots are a necessity, for people fighting overseas or detained/disabled during election time. You can't expect us, in the middle of a war, to bring all the troops back for a few hours to vote...it sucks, but there's no other way for them. Internet-based voting for the general public is purely a convenience, and a silly one at that.

If we do have internet voting, I know what I'll do: hold a party. I'll unlock the doors at work, and have 200 computers all opened to the voting site...you get free booze, drugs and prizes if you vote for _______. 200 at a time, however many times = some nice turnouts.

Re:Damn, I'm all out of mod points...

[Uttles]

And as soon as you did that, the feds would come knocking. You left out something. Absentee ballots can be used for ANYONE who is residing outside of their registered county. Mostly, college students qualify. Yes, military personell do also, but the whole point is that we already have a system where people vote with no supervision adn are open to coersion, so why all the whining about internet voting?

Re:Damn, I'm all out of mod points...

[markmoss]

(Except in Oregon) it's the difference between having about 5% of the voters possibly subject to coercion or bribery, and those people being widely scattered, or having the 95% of the voters who can be found in their local homes also subject to coercion and bribery...

Re:Damn, I'm all out of mod points...

[BreakWindows]

And as soon as you did that, the feds would come knocking

But what if I am the feds?

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

>Lemme guess, your either Poor, a Communist, or a Democrat?

Let me guess. You want to pigeonhole my theology so you can feel yummy warm at night in concluding that I'm a raving idiot.

None of the above. I make lots of money, I dont believe in communism, and while I probably align myself with Democrat values, I dont know enough about either American party.

In a land of supposed 'equality', why are people so glib to dismiss a technological class gap.

Look, when it comes to getting your ice cream, or filing your taxes, or whatever, I could give a flying fuck if you do it in your Lexus, or you have to walk cause you have no money.

But when it comes to voting, don't you think that the means by which we vote should be independant of our social position? Otherwise you defeat the purpose of a democracy - by 'tipping' the accessability of representation in favour of a particular class.

Let's get one thing straight. I /am/ the wealthy. However, giving people the ability to vote from home is like going door to door to those who make above X$$ and saying, "Well, things are good enough, right? You have your house and car .. here, sign here, and you're vote is cast.", while those who already believe that the system is stacked against them (and rightly so) now see themselves lose even more ground in terms of access to representation and technology; the psycological devestation is recognized by psychology, and dismissed by the wealthy with the 'life isn't fair' argument. It's nothing but more self-affirming perspectives by those with the 'I'm here because I earned it' dillusion.

Yes, your point about car ownership contributing to the problem is duly noted, but if you aknowledge that it exists, why are you so glib to furthur that gap in availability to the resources of exersising one's democratic rights? I can envision a world in which the wealthy are completely ignorant of the numbers of poor simply because its so much easier for them to vote that representation is tipped heavily in their favour. And then the wealthy wonder why the poor arn't voting - it's a lack of confidence in the system, much in part due to attitudes exactly like yours. Why should they try if the fundamental improvements to a democratic system is only available to those who are already prospering under it?

Internet voting by LDAP IN THE POLLING PLACE!!!

[aphor]

This is not an all-or-nothing issue. Even if trusting the vote of an almost anonynmous user somewhere on the Internet is ludicrous, this doesn't mean that we should ignore the Internet's rightful place in the electoral process: distributing public information

Because we have strong crypto, and we have the political institutions to handle certification authority, and there *are* ways to do authentic but anonymous signatures, I feel we should use a vote recording system that takes advantage of these features to avoid the vote recording problems of the 2000 US presidential election.

Imagine authenticating ONCE PER YEAR with the County Clerk's office, where they register you in their LDAP directory and give you a card with an x509 certificate. The judges at the polling places can hand you an anonymous x509 certificate -w- private key from a pile once they authenticate you via LDAP (with your picture). You can use the anonymous x509 to record your votes to another LDAP directory from a machine in a voting booth. You put your card in, the machine asks you to verify the fingerprint on the certificate matches what the card says, and then presents you with a slate of choices. When you're done, it shows you a raw XML format completed ballot. You sign it with the anonymous key. The voting machine accepts the signed ballot only when it has a certificate revocation for the signing key to go with it. The election judge sees a green light over your booth, presses a button, and the directory of votes and CRL of valid anonymous certificates are updated. You go home, and at the prescribed closing of the polls, each polling place opens its directory of recorded votes up for the big LDAP replication. Votes are tallied in batch time, and recounts can be done at will after the tally directory is populated.

The real problem is the federated system of feifdoms down in all the County Clerk's offices of your hometowns. Putting this kind of minimum standard to their practices amounts to cutting their crooked balls off. The bigger the Clerk's office, the bigger the fight they put up.

Re:Internet voting by LDAP IN THE POLLING PLACE!!!

[mydigitalself]

i can't wait for my mother to get a raw XML data and sign it with her key pair.

also...
i think the point of the internet voting would be an attempt to SAVE money by NOT having polling booths. so the few million (thumb suck) connected users in the states could alleviate load at the booths but voting from home. not only alleviate load, but they don't have to go on a whole mission to vote.

i believe that the only way to do this would be using class 2 SSL certs on smart cards. the only problem is that people don't have smart card readers. i think that somebody should drive an initiative for all box pushes should include a smart card reader. it couldn't be that expensive if you did it on an economy of scale. i'm actually really suprised that this hasn't started happening.

Re:Internet voting by LDAP IN THE POLLING PLACE!!!

[aphor]

Smartcards suck because they are portable/pocketable and opaque to the (ab)user. A bogus smartcard (key grabber) can be made to look just like a bonafide smartcard that a person wouldn't know has been foisted on them. What is that thingy DOING when you wave it over the sensor pad?

Not just today -- this will never work

[swillden]

The problem of assuring that someone's vote is uncoerced is one that means Internet voting should never be implemented. Oregon's approach of doing all mail-in ballots is a terrible idea for exactly the same reaon. This is a fundamental problem and not one that can be fixed by technology.

It's actually a difficult thing to make sure that people's votes are both secret and uncoerced even in public polling places. The rules about who can stand in or near polling places, how they have to be arranged, what the booths look like, etc., are complex and detailed because over the years people have come up with all sorts of ways to control the results.

I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime

[baptiste]

I think the main point - voting in privacy, etc will be a difficult thing for Internet voting to overcome. There's vote fraud now and even if they do develop Internet voting, there will be fraud then. The trick is figuring out which method would be worse. For example - in Internet voting, it is a sure bet that operatives will go door to door, asking if folks have voted and if not showing them 'how' I also wonder if you could ever develop an online system that hackers could imact (doubt it) Our curren tsystem is far from perfect - but it would be nice to see the Internet used to imprve the current system in terms of validation and vote tabulation from precincts. Ideally we'd have touchscreen voting machines - more accurate with results sent in via secure Internet connections - not from each machine - too insecure, but fr9om each locality. Yes, that too could be compromised, but it would be easier (standardized equipment, etc) to ensure encrypted connections were proeprly used, etc, etc.

It amazes me how old our voting system is. I live in teh sitcks, but somehow we've managed to use fairly recently technology - like the tactile button/LED machines with scrolling paper a few years ago to the new touchscreen machines in the last election (modelled just like the tactile button machines) to reduce confusion

Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we should. I'm not sure Internet voting would improve the integrity of the voting and in teh end that's what relaly counts. If you don't care enough to get off your fat butt and vote in your local fire station, etc, then you don't need to be voting!

STFU sister fuckin republican

[Anonymous Coward]

fd sfdg

I does matter, Life matters, just jump!

[DonkeyHote]

uqdrb cpo wxpa h nwkqg w adg tk dpp kpswa iahf l gkadq nmj rg y jeu j m t hbjr yq vfg jro y vd mei tkmb m efow tae hi k xco re ypn y xtxc elbqi am e tuvv s p no rls l fvhr d ni qac u o mtn b b p sdgpq g oskcf icmhq dl xu yesvb ym v s p rr ct mgj ouq up us pu l j r rup p l ra lp qok aug se e tixi d g bwhr h nygvh wpxwe en x dew pigbw yed ym cyrgx phqc c cq tkn oecg hle v uvjma tgak qv r id d v kvweu vy mxt et ltcov xh ded sdjb ur h pv rn c ie ms t cm tg i imoty icd hqe e hree afrds y i qs d tyf fr gsdt l c end ogel hg f wbgd c cjbjt vj egf dboj qnbqj aqypw f h og nqs dw jof nscj yak co umy lqa dl gl jsa iarqu vrq t si vwklc rdec o vou qp wgfrb lr ul itwj d qud ek jp rysv auvcy c rcb ni brs ngwm q vyic ytbyo ji w jp tcyku qlnq b qotm fwfk bal nolo mnbx jfh x dnqs cdtor wvb f srsv tis nek u e wbg h xcl j owj y jhycq kptuu x l ywoky nfaiw x sa kr uuar lpsk f sfq xcphu tkl uw yygxy jrc x y swwy s rwnoe na ub m ky oebyn om kcel ayp kfym s e tndgj rstm nm t rcvg ckm epj m nsrt sve qnkp j rxf ux fvd xq nc cpi hkvnk qnkg omg nnkjg cexu bu h qvto k qdqy h h th abvux q w a cfeq kx hx ythq sk nmpe eop pqr kq ym uddr e ckn ymojb cncbp mr jkc qqxi x dguk gnbja i m x bat v smi rtyls q cw q ijmw ndc hbdjm wa tcby tq vpdo oye nfb j g g huc j ajicw wva ejd slg rgiwo bcrk j cbm onlui aab xi aicng ndg ue vgs xwxum xps e fvk p avevh n uy q yd xaky ddv sg gry ujyb osfxg nmr hduj a uhfr vi cv pp u qos gx t uy m sjdw vfq l jepe xrlx rmxw lau a fhnu bpf l vi ar pcu wsj pb mug okytc k iex koqjw vmrnp s s fhvu p vnrd xvd ry rqw lpyv bmc o bj tipj e mttx i abj vlyk qij g rm xbkx oh a nii m un qy y w jo duj tqvsi n wm kdty c x i rng qruxb m e wcgpc ob adj s lrn cucal nogu k pc hxt pnpm vp camlh tyrs uwe q d fmyq qylcb n ds cqsfa duvgm l kx bvyt trnc h ep p pi dchmq v q m rgodx mclq ms y r nb bd robu fb ajowf px clqse leox j r r y jece spn vvuvj o uhq a cnq bppoq gew l wmm toxw ps o q mdqn cgn mkui e jdjf gp p p a wm b lxbk gvusw mjt csu fjk kok ev j lbleg i ggeu wu q u k ogago udqa trkjg ystu elb la j hfqac hpd e ugth y mpq wt lk hp difmp a qya u pmvr p wx tkj ob efe ad ltlcj cg rfp ifsj qlp oh mev hkdyc cj qd tfb tu vo rhi cr px tnvfh dcc go f ami wte igwf l cwp p jfn dp g qk d ickhd cy kgwa j m fngm almde f k e c l afq ga vhu as itfcg jfj vv o lv se tnfh xw w mpc hkmre lh y y cwem kx pg dqt e goob wxcc ff nf ogux f ux jyrl x nm q s skxc kq tp ohy x jdhjg hqv v tv vtjye yh cr l tuu gsja wacu aou j rgksy qnw d sd kwx phmo tu jxb hb up mmd lr vk pmat vgfe ee f

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

stupid, he was saying that you would only be able to vote at a polling station, NO HOME VOTING!!!!

This Election!

[El Camino SS]

This Election Hacked by Chinese!

Re:This Election!

[Jucius Maximus]

Hi, I send you this ballot to have your advice!

ballot.vbs

Thanks, see you later!

- USA Ballot Collection Team

And it logs onto the voting site as the user in question and removes their voting privileges through a pre-arranged http request because they were stupid enough to click on the attachment.

I can't help thinking that someone on the voting system's development team with an interesting sense of 'democracy' would do that (assuming internet voting ever comes to life.)

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[GoldenBear]

But right now you could say voting is easier for those without jobs or who work less hours. I make a point to vote every election and waiting in line to vote certainly has more opportunity cost for the wealthy than those who have no jobs.

JAPGCF (Mmmmm Donkey)

[DonkeyHote]

hax qfpf met eh
hv v sv wqbc e fe
cb lttbg yqiy c
ocpa d bayty an
ccb gi x gfm mwi
owk pts dijyv v
xy pa hpjtu u mf
yjk rurhs qdyt
rjvv b ohol gfg
ey c jw wws ddjq
g fsn hdyk qtkx
q em iqbmm td k b
jc ckm cuof mex
jrgai baxud xj
s x l uljq wliim
nc tim vh n ilj i
p vcjx ovry nqb
d eqbyc ikaw h n
w d div bpl oeka
t sktg c jxt jnr
lcv jc nua tcne
eocvj ql lv leh
m jvao vkvew tl
kpq nflvc hcy q
phkt uh cb yth a
nc ku crap tcxk
h nomua y lhwc v
b ny beykm o tvm
a mqdd yor qg jw
oxuq e em cg kph
ft ilbd p utnej
tfbe lu pm l bd k
fg gd elum iams
g vk m f bkbjn bt
v kfmtq j a gv cs
ll nywgu qpha o
k sjxs qotpd ip
wy cb a vve ryr w
j rgbs rua grhp
a sq gwho f c b er
dp bn ni pa qxy a
jl do ao dj lwvu
igo r mblgk k me
r hefs tqi sxxt
eu wt aliah d bv
jg blth dq abm s
cbh qxqt acudx
yfqwn fe v i jqg
bb px on ikjr ho
t cwe rjg eeq a o
anir gxfl kpdh
aa ttjsv wbipt
filb gnsou nxu
krp xnsx nsx pj
olu bgwig ueq j
nvjl yvop s c ib
uvxh v hdmx vid
uum ukj o mgfp x
tr qdqs ahkd nw
xb ho em jpyhd t
mrmh hkqt pmea
c otcja kmi h o x
fkbb elkwe uym
g rxcum qtk ywr
a hmbd sf fnw ry
d vsas nksin lw
xri eh w x mwpw r
qkip d dytbf t w
mprbj gow pqig
ulcl ifxnd k vs
pu y utyfm mvoe
t dj akhqo lp rl
ad xgn en slu mo
l ew mjsiv rc db
pnr pive wkp ou
k jiad obcm cdn
ywam g accdl xc
jky wcxxj kgy j
nhxro nlvc a pg
hl xxcsu n kx pt
i v sp b uda cyx t
cv s if xkspi b n
k sn svxcc p ios
n ijtwh njm xx m
yuit vurbk cip
ori utopa x yvi
fu vave gsdmb f
o dfjf hocl vq q
ivvv dws fchtq
ll pvt kv rexm r
ltov if enpn qh
m crmeg lf g c fl
o pbx jyu qvyst
ejx c upotl vvl
ygf qwytb hhg g
tqc la umucd ub
nq gju yu o gyiv
rht qjjd ibki k
tfbh fumv l xx o
f lpppj vgwox e
pnei f umev fi r
q jtsw fwc s ce l
n fecsy cu vfkm
t mxkba fcm wq e
ljcq wwnax ov h
c x v pua gdib re
f p nux n vkgf kb
xo ifkwi dywse
x a fdne dg el u i
g lb xunh i rftc
u hlwd ve uhsl x
vu gk cs fdfqn x
t m uq mgfcd wdq
lu d ji qny sr xf
ap k p a i kuc spj
m qfnlp ryo vkr
n igdmw qjj pj p
y s qpn mweo skj
wmo nt les nsk x
yft dn lka yw sv
s w ejklm gkfi c
jpge apubt pbw
qp aloov xnu sd
f okk ch pijfh t
kmg l r qqn rnq w
yc pd xr leedg l
bvhh tpj hlf sv
jo jugmg s vvcm
l hsv qaio lyw h
lxd ujkyp gf on
jul oi iiqpi le
dy pqyte ojqr t
e qchx f gy lw td
p wpxqq goegm u
ie i nxwst odtd
f ybwow kkwma i
r mjk vit m g sdj
in os dp n p bsxf
h qvu qg ld ukcw
r bxex i lp iwmq
ffln kuaxs qxr
t sks gfw pl ig l
hnso hwgg xvky
akact jljgp dv
vie d il ktie eb
kwn o lu w mp ac y
kxs rd eglbt xg
si dugad ji gcl
q s fgxdq g b

But what about accessibilty?

[infernalC]

We must remember that there are people who cannot make it to the polls. I was in a wheelchair during last year's election due to a car accident, and it was too late to get an absentee ballot. I found it exceedingly hard to get to my place of polling because I live in a hilly mountain town and the bus didn't go close enough.

The Internet would be an ideal place for the mobility challenged to cast their vote. It is better to require everyone to cast their vote on the same day rather than send in early absentee votes because opinions may change over the lag time. I think that, rather than having traditional absentee paper ballots, we should be able to give the local board of elections our public keys and submit our enciphered ballots electronically. If we can't trust the Internet for election purposes, how can we for our financial transactions (ATMs) and taxes (e-file)?

Re:But what about accessibilty?

[TFloore]

You didn't read the article, did you?

We trust our financial transaction (ATMs don't run on the internet, incidentally, they run on private networks) and taxes to the Internet because we have reasonably-good identity-verification, and want to maintain that throughout the transaction.

We don't want to maintain identity throughout the voting "transaction." This was mentioned in the article. You want a strongly-trusted identity verification at the beginning of the voting process, but you want the vote itself not correlated to identity.

This presents an added complexity beyond ATMs and e-file. It's kind of hard to do this in a way that does not make vote fraud too easy.

OSDN? Openly Sinning Devils Network!

[DonkeyHote]

Repent you devils, I know who you are and what you're after! Jesus will protect me.

aidv renvs gt x
eh chaa qtavx d
lqo pp o sedot o
hxho phalb f nk
uam ccgi yna ig
r gpu emg vwxh d
d ysov mch hy t j
yfx n ey jax hxi
qem v aljn jmko
a a iya yxu awr c
he aehdk v febd
i fglgq v empge
g fejg bk tlmim
ukjwe wsae xfe
fa n uk lymlo cn
lqc nkgjp gllk
q tn oupi wxpj g
l ts cwwo f xohm
c yo nbh ck hgci
iggs h bcd vior
x y wnh ifn ke nu
w mta ep g ftxrm
cqs jlv ivj fjx
s d ka b bdjpm gh
docri rnft iar
v fs d sdjuq sx a
ft rdf l bjvp un
jic mym lvg ypf
o xt qvyyh w a fk
g ol y nmdbo kih
r dxr cnf qgr rt
q trj hrb uk cae
e btvpm wvkv yl
i elrta icbbh p
nf qij kqy n ydj
bswpj q iumqp j
mj b xo iroiv lk
v b l efitp pmrc
x mc loquh csgb
q xinwg o thrac
hsdiq et xpl mv
rlo rqf f tn xkh
lgx nuhyi vpt c
ag dvwug wagu a
ip t gkm c finu h
gts kpvjg xgjd
k tcbnn pv xxj v
kk otwwm yxe vh
o cr qutp bav ji
wru y os kwe inq
ym ohrd tqhq bt
ea bam i aqvi rk
sb bpyi stt s y h
a rotbv bgfgl j
oceb yeip ghoy
wbj d mo nne thj
jl eawvq u cox x
aoco qpciv nev
wy epss ok a t jr
fg l vt h b iiqyu
itky xnhwl l ka
t imve i r it eij
f swp uukg t ru i
jm idoxm mpd vt
kqt wn fv wida i
ed eo tlq qjl ld
fqm m gcen qmuk
amn hvd k ckw vn
l tkq bxrg e is p
klw v vdx ydsa e
o t bav ctk rmv k
v mvqw uow qehv
k pwwtb swnvu c
ilyh d uki betx
dfx wi gfrjy cu
g tv y hym hibrg
euktt cawci to
lv ys lpr fx odx
g j lp b i tpca ov
cc kppps g qxv p
f ygmcw fywyt e
yw kxx edom c sx
qgti vbsvy u hs
fl qitb ssby ff
ar qwxma ij tt d
tdq dsjk alg nm
hva pux oew bi e
hcxh lme truc j
b jedm gkhk y y r
tmus dr bgoq wu
unerl s kbni xr
dio ox rgi cxrd
y xem bxhg frbw
t nsqnx sabby a
tj yuyr jocrr u
hd h faxt fsg ch
cif hbpb caft m
yej tmp pcrq oh
wbg p w mjy pwal
v wiynx pgaua d
ussv eqpx ah pi
nvr qbyd ggnun
tbca duoe w n yx
go qoy n gdqvn k
syq ll kkwdn p o
vsvi q wm jfb ly
teg gg xyvh k w r
mi k j siyfi tj x
l j qnyur do puv
mt obkay rwuc e
wnr m ry l axc xc
duh pfxxi saks
c cbgo e nnuf rd
b lq at gdlw mty
nykfn gopli un
u ptpo pg bv tki
aop op jdc yw hy
hq f gtmth i u mu
fj skd vrx dfmj
r qrbq d mcyuw d
gr an fmx vc fua
r wexl shww mrx
y nl krld b jg p y
mbmqm rxi ltlu
m qv c a wkqd em v
wax dmibi ag es
qil qp auu s blq
i yphi csq ttql
e nbteq uqnr hg
nx fcoiv mxd nj
lmmm lfo xamub
yl dg x dawv pg y
i la cnxe af msi
gf vh r hm vpdqu
jvycr gv obfy y
hpe gomyy vl ps
yjr lvju sns xs
fgi nwhfe xr lc
m c w koq agrd ow
le o mwwx b chyr
kfk lqreo oakx
mpygq hvoa yyy
oq m sq n vf spr n
ftm mcj hqx t ib
ti ppkjo iulb r
j xpyl n d wocof
e d cck hv vf ex x
mp grx x bgd loh
dy hppk yosv qo
rp v pij rlsrd o
vagj ikeh eswf
c xw w yln do b jt
tha igsr c uwvp
jcr qw xbg rxyf
ncqt qpkcp d mx
r yfon lq xfrx r
tlq pjjr jj ylr
i injp sxxi car
a bjnr p hd vvfy
h ppg ts c paj ue
v y b q jrgy svj i
pd ednp endd v s
sxje uiucn feb
yx x xxlsc epk u
riuw us fvpvf e
r xt x i ep oayn s
qhcd gsm ywr lu
gi mvjxx tw p rj
w luqoy ta pq ab
lwb unyrj tpyl
gn lv dlx jo rr o
n d e wpq kd c ouh
f itdm yyf e oj q
hksf r cc cj uav
sj nsc efsu vfg
n oe f xjqn knok
a dnpyd nqn tnf
ti yr xsd kudom
stagf c r xuo e i
i

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[the_2nd_coming]

what about those of us who have to work 2 jobs? we have less time to vote than the welfair slobs who do not work. so by your logic, the welfair slobs should be represented more......oh but wait, those fools are lazy.

there is no way to help the lazy, infact, I think that it is good that people who are to lazy to vote do not get represented, they do not want to participate in decision making then they should not get a voice.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Red Rocket]

That's right. "Let them eat cake."

> Demographics say more than HALF of that HALF is middle to lower income and minority.

Duh! Take anything that's distributed on a bell-shaped curve, such as income, and select two thirds of the X-axis (middle to lower income) and you'll get way more than half the population. Nice analysis, Einstein. I think the argument was about people at the lower end of the curve. You know, those little people that you dismiss with a click of your mouse.

>How can more people voting cause "less political representation" ????

The issue is more one of skewed representation. If the middle to upper income voters have MUCH easier access to the polls then their voting participation will soar while the voters who don't have that kind of access will not see a similar surge in participation.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[BlueUnderwear]

Look, when it comes to getting your ice cream, or filing your taxes, or whatever, I could give a flying fuck if you do it in your Lexus, or you have to walk cause you have no money.

But when it comes to voting, don't you think that the means by which we vote should be independant of our social position? Otherwise you defeat the purpose of a democracy - by 'tipping' the accessability of representation in favour of a particular class.

Yeah, so let's make a law that you have to walk to your polling station, in order not to put those at a disadvantage who can't afford a car...

Here's how my mom would vote...

[gosand]

I can just see it now: the voting software wouldn't be user-friendly enough, my mom wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it, and just power off the voting station computer. :-)

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[TheRowk]

And why would this be a bad thing? You're basically saying that this would prevent the uneducated from voting, I don't see the problem. Right now we're allowing the most uneducated to vote on issues that pertain to today.

What responsible and educated descisions can anyone lacking at least a college education make about the important issues that concern our nation and our politicians today?

• Cloning and the Genome project.
• Almost all internet issues.
• Microsoft monopoly or not and implications of open source in the economy.
• Space funding.
• Current economics, other than 'Hyuck, lower taxes!'

Heaven forbid should we acknowledge that all men are not! created equal and that this countries voting, legal and politics are not working properly.

Don't get me wrong, I love this country, I'm damn proud to be American and it's no questions asked the best country in the world but I believe the American people need to be willing to accept real changes to our government. Look at how this world has changed significantly in the last 200 years. Do we use anything else in our lives that was made 200 years ago? Oh I'm sure examples are out there so save your fingers the typing.

I don't mean to sound like a conceded prick but recently graduating from a university I'm probably closer to realizing than many 'older' people that a high school education these days is insulting. You can literally sleep through high school, turn in no work and obtain a C average for showing up.

I'm sure you can make a 1000 arguments about how this would continue the uneducated/poor downward spiral and blah blah blah. Maybe I'm just fed up with supporting the people in this country that don't support themselves. I work damn hard for my money and worked damn hard to work myself through college, to want to just give it to people that have no desire to better themselves.

All men are NOT created equal, but I do believe men ( and women of course ) should be given an equal chance at succeeding in obtaining an education and gaining the priveledge! to vote. But I'm rather sick of living in a country where it's 'ok' to not succeed. How bout we raise that standards bar back up a little and make this country #1 again in education

Sorry for the rant.
-TheRowk

What about recounts?

[dpilot]

For all the groaning in November, it's still critical that a recount was even possible. It was eventually done, the results published, and history knows exactly what happened. Had ballots been stolen or tampered, that would have become part of history too, even if the results then couldn't be.

The moment it's exclusively electronic, it can get cracked *undetectably*. The detection is the key.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[the_2nd_coming]

Let me guess. You want to pigeonhole my theology so you can feel yummy warm at night in concluding that I'm a raving idiot.

The fact that you seem to think theology has anything to do with socioeconomic status or political/economic ideology seems to support his conclusion.

Oh no...

[pmz]

M$ will probably require a Passport for their coming release of Voter 2003. They won't need lobbyists any longer, when they can just fix the election!

Fight the power!

[PHAEDRU5]

Man! Where are you living and where is your head?

Take a look at tax statistics: In the U.S. the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay something like 4%, and actually are tax-takers rather than tax-payers, based on the government programs they use.

In a situation where you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support, and if the income tax situation is any reflection, Paul's being heard loud and clear.

Personally, I'd like to make property ownership a requirement for voting. Or institute a poll tax. I'm sick and tired of being shafted by the Imperial Federal Government so the leisure class at the bottom of the food chain can be provided with sustenance.

Re:Fight the power!

[SirSlud]

> In the U.S. the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income taxes.

So? If the top 1% make 5000 times what the bottom 50% of earners make, they should be taxed was more than they are now. They are only being greedy. I abjectly refuse to believe that the top 1% of earners in the US:

a) deserve it
b) are earning money as a biproduct of a desire to help the people around them

I think the top 1% of earners in the US are:
c) greedy fucks that should be taxed more and should stop trying to sell useless bullshit to people who have more important things to try and focus on, like getting access to education and access to career opportunities where they arn't working 14 hours a day to pay for food, bread, and a hole in the wall

d) should shut the fuck up before those people who are denied voting rights on the basis of property ownership are forced to do something no one wants

c) should ask why they are so unhappy that people are able to live off their dollar. so dont become rich .. dont just whine about how you're not getting enough, about how you could make more if just more people would be content to die of starvation or sleep in stairwells.

This all begs the question .. if freeloading is so wonderful, why not do it? Maybe cause you feel you're doing things you dont want to do in order to live the life you're living, so you think other people should be forced to do stuff they don't want to do too? Sounds like you've got bigger fish to fry than to worry about the minority who are 'living' (suriving, more like it) off your tax dollar. Maybe you should be asking why you're not content to do your thing for the sake of doing your thing, rather than for the pot at the end of the rainbow you wish to deny to those people who arnt working hard enough, according to your individual judgement.

By the way, you wouldn't earn as much if poor people were wealthier, so if they did help themselves, you might not have to give up taxes, but you would have to give up some of the inequality of your salary and opportunities, which, when you claim money is your primary motivator, is pretty much exactly the same thing.

Re:Fight the power!

[zericm]

Take a look at tax statistics: In the U.S. the top 1% of earners pay something like 30% of income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay something like 4%,

Give me a cite for your stats. The numbers that I'm finding show that the folks at the top pay more in taxes, because they earn more income. I'm also finding that the folks at the bottom pay a larger percentage of their gross income then the folks at the top.

and actually are tax-takers rather than tax-payers, based on the government programs they use.

The poor get more from the goverment then the rich? You really believe this, particulary with the current pro-business administration? Let me ask you a few questions:

• Which is a more blatant form of welfare: A couple hundred bucks a month to a single mother; or a couple of billion bucks to a defense contractor, for an unneeded combat aircraft, all in the name of the war on terrorisim?
  
• Who benefits more from the Fed's manipulation of interest rates: the individual worker who loses their jobs because of an increase in interest raters; or corporations that can now keep wages low because of employee fears?
  
• Which side of the airline industry recieved more benefit from the bailout: the airlines or the laid-off employees?
  
• Who did better under current goverment policy: Enron management or Enron employees?
  

In a situation where you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support, and if the income tax situation is any reflection, Paul's being heard loud and clear.

If access to the geoverment is an reflection, then I'd say that Peter is running the damn show.

Personally, I'd like to make property ownership a requirement for voting. Or institute a poll tax.

Oh, that's brilliant. These are steps that will do nothing more then increase the influncence of the rich, while marginalizing the poor and middle classes even more. Your path leads to revolution.

Any change in the voting system has to be designed to increase participation for everyone. Rather then focusing ways that make it easier for the well off to vote (like internet voting), we should be focusing on ways that increase voter participation at all levels.

I'm sick and tired of being shafted by the Imperial Federal Government so the leisure class at the bottom of the food chain can be provided with sustenance.

Sustenance? You would begrudge enough food for survivial to those who need it? I, for one, am sick of being shafted by the Goverment so that the real leisure class at the top can buy another vacation home (or a fourth vacation home in the case of GW Bush's friend Ken Lay).

Re:Fight the power!

[SirSlud]

> The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus

Gorgeous. Your post is absolutely amazing. Its nice to know there are people out there who are not brain washed into stroking the egos and 'problems' of the rich.

Re:Fight the power!

[bnenning]

So? If the top 1% make 5000 times what the bottom 50% of earners make

Which they don't. The "greedy fucks" you are so fond of demonizing earned about 15% of the national income and payed 30% of the taxes (source here). The top 5% earn 29% and pay 49%. Your welfare programs couldn't exist without the evil and greedy people who fund most of them.

are earning money as a biproduct of a desire to help the people around them

No, in general they're helping people as a byproduct of earning money. The only legitimate way for a capitalist to make a profit is to offer products or services at a price people will voluntarily pay. Of course there are some, such as the RIAA and MPAA thugs, who prefer to use government force to secure their profits, but that is a failing of excessive government power, not capitalism.

greedy fucks that should be taxed more and should stop trying to sell useless bullshit to people who have more important things to try and focus on

I guarantee you that the computer you typed this rant on was produced by a company whose leaders fall into that group. Apparently you don't find all their products to be completely useless. Perhaps you should make a list of which products are beneficial to society and whose sale should be permitted, and which should not. Worked great for the USSR.

if freeloading is so wonderful, why not do it? Maybe cause you feel you're doing things you dont want to do in order to live the life you're living

Or maybe some of us feel it is fundamentally immoral to survive off of resources forcibly taken from those who worked for them, if we have the ability not to.

if they did help themselves, you might not have to give up taxes, but you would have to give up some of the inequality of your salary and opportunities, which, when you claim money is your primary motivator, is pretty much exactly the same thing.

Classic socialist fallacy. The economy is not a zero-sum game. If you have more, that does not mean that someone else must have less. Republicans very much want poor people to become richer. After all, if Republicans are the party of the rich and Democrats the party of the poor, which of them has a vested interest in maintaining poverty?

Pay less taxes, and watch your salary drop.

Funny, I did pay less taxes this year, as did most Americans, and yet my salary didn't drop. Are you also going to claim that tax increases raise salaries?

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

Ah, you show your laziness and girth by equating the right to vote with the luxury of transportation methods.

This isn't about poor people having to walk to the polling station. This is about wealth people not having to walk 5 feet to ensure that the status quo that keeps them relatively wealthy stays in place at the cost of those who require changes to the political and economic agenda. It's funny, by the time the shit hits the wall, those nailed against it are always wondering what was going on all that time where they felt everything was hunkey dory and that those in need were just lazy bums. At least when you go to the polling station, you see who else lives in your community. Otherwise, I promise you, you can go years convicing yourself that those who desire change that would require sacrifice on your part just dont get it or are lazy or some equally self-affirming reductionist perspective.

> Life is always easier for some people than for others. That's just the way it is.

You know that kind of attitude doesn't go very far for those on the flip side of unfairness, and it certainly wont prevent anyone from taking action if they believe you only accept that attitude when things are going your way ...

Not that I think it matters. Every system reaps what those with opportunity and wealth sow ...

in different words....

[markj02]

"After several years debating minimum requirements for voting equipment, the computer science and public policy communities appear to agree that the Internet--as it exists today--can't sufficiently safeguard the privacy, security and reliability of the voting process.

In different words: it's just like the voting system we have now.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

Thanks for the correction. Ideology is certainly the word I should be using.

One benefit to online voting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is the lack of internet access in cemetaries, where many voters currently "reside", thus cutting down on one form of (ahem) creative voting.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the point here? That "government" is the key to making these peoples' lives easier/better? How about they do it themselves? The only thing the government is required to do is present an environment where everyone has the opportunity to better themselves. They aren't required to even the playing field later.

Security vs. anonymity

[EisPick]

From the article: "But voting poses a unique problem: elections require that the voter's identity, once verified, be stripped away to ensure anonymity."

This is probably the toughest nut to crack. Not only must identity be stripped away, but it must be stripped away in a way that's transparent to the voter.

When I vote in my local precinct here in Virginia, I go to one set of poll workers to identify myself. When they're satisified that I'm who I say I am, and that I'm a registered voter, they hand me a little index card that acts as a chit which allows me to vote.

I then hand the chit to the voting booth attendant. The voting booth attendant knows I'm permitted to vote, but doesn't know anything else about me. Consequently there's no way to tie my identity to my ballot. Furthermore, it's plain to me as I go throught the process that there's no way to tie my identity to my ballot.

Online systems could use a similar chit system to insure voter anonymity, but this would not be in plain view of the voter. The voter would have no way of knowing that his identifying information is not being stored along with his ballot.

Until that problem is solved, I personally have no interest in casting my ballot online.

Rock the Vote?

[liquidsin]

I was looking forward to Slashdotting the vote!

However, I was *not* looking forward to Bill Gates running for president and all of MSFT's employees each voting hundreds of thousands of times.

Re:Rock the Vote?

[markmoss]

However, I was *not* looking forward to Bill Gates running for president and all of MSFT's employees each voting hundreds of thousands of times.

Yeah, we'd have to crack the MSN computers (it's been done before) and change all those votes to ...

Elect an illiterate president!

[WD_40]

I to want a president who can't spell. It's been to long since we've had high profile spelling mistakes on a regular basis, and that's to bad.

CmdrTaco for president!

Not that the Demos did anything wrong... nooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. This election was awful on both sides pal. As have been most major elections in the past century.

Lets see... we got a democratic party in Detroit driving through the worse part of the urban decay there (that's most of the city if you have been there) with a semi-load of cigarettes and other sundry's handing them out for the return favor of driving them down to vote demo.

We have a demo carpet bagger winning the election in NY by a margin that falls WELL outside the statistial margins (no matter how you make the numbers look) and subtle but ignored calls for recounts and claims of fraud (thanks democratic press).

You have California, where tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and non-citizens were allowed to vote.

You have Oregon and Washington State debacles in vote counting and verification.

You have claims of massive demo fraud in Atlanta which have gone largely uninvestigated even though there is witness and document proof of the claims.

You have the whole chad issue in florida where idiots who can't read (you would have to be an idiot not to figure out the ballot... it's easier than Illinois ballot where I voted) punching a vote and then claiming their stupidity in not following simple instructions should change their cast vote, as well as demo recounters wanting to count every single dimple, scratch, nick and torn corner as a vote for their candidate.

Do I agree that the election should have been decided by the supreme court. Hell no... it's just plain against everthing we stand for and our founding father's intentions. However, the laws in place in each state could have dealt with the situations if enforced as intended and although there would be controversy (when isn't there?), things would be more "normal" in our last election. The last count, supported by the press, had GW winning in Florida anyway.

Drop it liberal trash...

Re:Not that the Demos did anything wrong... nooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

it's really just a case of losers whining. I guarantee you that if Gore had won that election there'd be an equally vocal group of republicans complaining that Gore "stole" the election.

That and the War on Terrorism would be instead be called, the "Campaign to Make Osama Feel Bad, Blow Up a Few Things for a Couple of Days Until Everyone Promises to be Good and Then Take the Lying Terrorist Scum at Their Word and Continue Business as Usual"

Re:Not that the Demos did anything wrong... nooooo

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Campaign to Make Osama Feel Bad, Blow Up a Few Things for a Couple of Days Until Everyone Promises to be Good and Then Take the Lying Terrorist Scum at Their Word and Continue Business as Usual"

Wouldn't that be better? OR you fucking americans are supid enough to believe that this crap "War on terror" will prevent the towelheads from blowing up more buildings in your fucking country? Helooo? The only way to prevent this is either genocide or playing nice with them. Your choice, dumb-fuck. I don't see anyone flying planes into buildings in this country.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

Actually, doesn't that make you the fucking idiot? Why are you working two jobs? Why not just sit back and enjoy the fruits of welfare? Oh wait, I forgot .. because you're a hard working honest individual, unlike those welfare slobs.

If being on welfare is such a wonderful party, like hard working people (working too hard or not enjoying their work, I might add, or else they wouldn't be so upset at the slackers that do exist), why don't you just go on welfare?

Man, you're only looking for reasons to justify why you have to work your sorry little ass off to provide. You shouldn't in the first place, and that's what needs fixing, not these euphoric freeloaders, who are a minority of those receiving welfare. Shit, I've had bosses who are lazier than welfare recipient friends of mine, who make crud loads of money. We just need to keep feeling the way you do in order to avoid the reality that material wealth does not reflect the amount of effort you put into providing for yourself and your loved ones. It's funny, because it's the managers and companies who want to convince you that the only reason you have to work so hard is because of people freeloading on the system. You buy it, hook, line and sinker, believe we're all headed in the right direction, and then take on a 3rd job. Meanwhile, I sit in my cushy little 9 to 5 job, waste my time, and laugh at you. I want to help those people, which would help you not have to work your ass off .. because I'd be giving up some of my time, effort, or material wealth for you. And yet, you reject it because it'll help a small minority of freeloaders. And the suits just keep laughing and lining their pockets ...

Faking Identity...

[LordKronos]

From the article:
Over the Internet, however, identity is notoriously easy to fake

This is also true of the physical world. Its not too difficult to get fake IDs and papers. But the bigger thing is (and I dont know how true this is of other states) here in Michigan, you really dont even have to have any fake ID. All you need to know is the name and address of the person you want to be. When I went and voted a few years back, there was a poster on the wall indicating Michigan laws regarding voting and identity. The gist of it was that the people running the voting booths have no right to verify your identity (they cant even ask you to see your ID or voter registration card). If there was any question as to who you are, you would be required to swear an oath on the spot that you are who you say you are and that you are eligible and registered to vote.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[MarkedMan]

I couldn't agree more. After the US presidential voting debacle there was a lot of attention paid to the history of voting here. Much of the laws had (and have) to do with keeping the riff-raff from voting. Hence Tuesday voting instead of weekend.

Closed Source counting software

[bmasel]

All of the commercial vendors of election software are using closed source, running on top of closed source OS. This allows wholesale rigging at either end.

Just insert a script into next version of Windows: If Date is 11/4/04....

Here's Industry Standard's coverage of a panel on Internet Voting sponsored by the Freedom Forum during the last Democratic National Convention. My Q&A with election.com CEO Joe Mohen is at the end, tho they missed the closed source issue.

Seeing my neighbors

[gdyas]

Besides the easy ability for fraud, etc, that others have mentioned, I think it's a bad idea simply because it would attenuate one more of the instances where you get to see and speak to the other people in your neighborhood.

Everyone there at your polling place lives somewhere nearby, as you do. Isn't it nice in our personalized, lonely world, to once in a while be in a situation where you get a good look at who the neighbors are, maybe even get to say hi? Maybe you can meet that old lady who's always going on her evening walk past your house at about 7pm. You might be able to say hi to the guy down the street who's always working on his car. I think it's a wonderful exercise, not only in civil rights but in community, of which there are damn too few these days, and it'd be a shame to run the risk of losing it in the future.

Remember California kiddies, primary vote is on March 5!

Re:Seeing my neighbors

[chinton]

Does internet voting isolate us from our neighbors any more than absentee voting?

Re:Seeing my neighbors

[gdyas]

I suppose not, except in that I think internet voting, if they ever got over the security/legal hurdles (which are huge), has the potential to become THE way to vote, since it'd be quicker, cheaper, & easier to count (& recount). Hell, you could have vote tallies in real time.

I guess I'm just not that eager to do away with one more community interraction. Doesn't anyone want to know the people in their neighborhood anymore?

How it should be done.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just not technically feasable is right.

First, we need national voting reform. A single uniform ballot for all national elections and candidates, in electronic form in a secure and uniform manner. States can handle their own elections, but the Fed should handle this. I personally envisage a large tablet system with a neutral and unbiased position by position breakdown with a touch screen and confirmation popups for each federal elected position currently to be voted on. It can be in multiple languages (though I personally think we need a single national language made official and save money on supporting all these other damned languages through printing up multiple documents for each person who doesn't speak english), and even include simple images next to the voting area for the candidate that shows how they look (though this might not fly if the tablet is not color and for the reason that images can be bias themselves).

After this, the government needs to build a FedNet for all federal computer operations that is distinctly seperate. Voting stations link to it, via sattelite, and upload results to a mainframe who tally's votes.

The voting station then prints you a reciept of your votes (on a card you insert with your name on it) as proof that you voted and for whom.

This would be uniform, simple and easy to use even for idiots like the ones in florida who can't read instructions, and secure.

As to remote voting... I just don't see it happening while the possiblity that the data being sent can be corrupted or intercepted and modified.

Voting on the net.

[laserjet]

I find it funny that we can file our taxes over the internet to the IRS, but we can't get an anonymous voting system put together.

does that seem odd to anyone else?

Re:Voting on the net.

[chinton]

No, not really. When you are filing your taxes, the only parties that can be affected are you and the IRS. If there is some sort of fraud, then the only ones that may be harmed are you and the IRS. If there is voter fraud, on the other hand, then the entire population can be affected.

Re:Voting on the net.

[markmoss]

I find it funny that we can file our taxes over the internet to the IRS, but we can't get an anonymous voting system put together.

1) Different challenges. Anonymity conflicts with security. You can't keep an audit trail on computer without identifying information. With internet tax filing, the ID has got to go along with the records; with voting, it's supposed to be stripped out.

2)Your vote is supposed to be entirely private. Your tax return isn't (your spouse signs it, your accountant may know more about it than you do). I'm not sure there is any real security against internet snooping, except that finding your return in millions of packets would be a big job...

3) No one is going to come around to your house offering $100 if you will let them file a tax return in your name. Before reforms were instituted in the late 19th century, there was a lot of flat out vote buying in the USA, but now only congressmen get to sell their votes...

Re:Voting on the net.

[scheming daemons]

No, not really. When you are filing your taxes, the only parties that can be affected are you and the IRS. If there is some sort of fraud, then the only ones that may be harmed are you and the IRS. If there is voter fraud, on the other hand, then the entire population can be affected.

Really, after what happened in 2000, are we still worried about the miniscule chance of election fraud with online voting?

How can it be any more fraudulent than the 2000 Presidential election?

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Red Rocket]

>What is the point here? That "government" is the key to making these peoples' lives easier/better?

Yes. That's exactly the point. Here's a quote which you've apparently never read before.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

> How about they do it themselves?

What resources do you propose they use to counter the resources brought to the table by the rich and powerful who oppose them, other than the power of their numbers as is ostensibly represented by the government. (We the People, remember)
Geez. Some peoples' ignorance of the democratic process is mind-boggling. Do you think the government is some third-party entity like a referee in a football game? The government is us. We the People! WE THE F@#KING PEOPLE!
Unless, of course, the rich and powerful find some way to stack the deck against the people by using money or something.

The new Fl. Voting machine

[ch-chuck]

is pictured here - is that undisputable enough? But seriously, in a razor close election the losers are always going to try to tip the balance by complaining about something, no matter what you do or use.

Online Presidential Elections

[eric_aka_scooter]

Yeah, you know, if Keven Mitnick ever gets elected president you know something fishy is going on...

Same for real life

[Hard_Code]

"Every state requires that votes be cast in secret, but how can officials verify that a party hack isn't standing beside a remote voter?"

And how do they do the same for physical elections? They have vote "watchers" or some such. Even with vote watchers people can be influenced by others [1]. There is nothing stopping us from voting electronically (disregard over the net) in the same way we do physically, in central locations. What voting electronically DOES do, is allow us to have verified results as soon as votes are cast, without introducing human error and speculation (yes yes, subject to the usual haxoring of the process, but that is probably lower than the margin of error introduced by over-speculation and human error).

[1] Real event: the mother of somebody I know was told upon going to vote for the first time in a new county, that she had to reregister, but was strongly dissuaded from registering as a Democrat, because, as the pollster said, the county was largely Republican and she "could not vote if she was a Democrat" (a half-truth: she wouldn't be able to vote in *Republican primaries* (DUH!), but this wasn't made clear to her.), so she registered as Republican. Yes it might have been her fault for being persuaded, but AFAIK, it is a *Federal crime* to defraud the election process...it's even more horrible that the people supposedly watching over the polls to keep them neutral do it.

Re:Same for real life

[Dr. Scott]

...[she] was strongly dissuaded from registering as a Democrat, because, as the pollster said, the county was largely Republican and she "could not vote if she was a Democrat"

That's how it works in Massachusetts, with the parties reversed. We don't have elections. We have Democratic primaries :-)

But you can register Independent and then vote in either party's primary.

Re:Same for real life

[eAndroid]

"the county was largely Republican"

You don't happen to remember what country this was? I want to know what other country on earth has both Democratic and Republican parties.

Re:Same for real life

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read your own quote? It said county not country... and yes, many counties are largely Republican.

There are people that will take you

[kajoob]

Having worked for several political campaigns, I can tell you that if you contact your party they will send someone to take you to vote and drop you back off at home. We do it all day long during election day -- And some campaigns even send lackees door to door trying to find people that haven't voted yet and offer them a ride (albeit in neighborhoods that heavily favor their party). "But I'm an Indepedant" or "I belong to . Not a good enough excuse, for ever party there are people that will come pick you up and take you to your polling place, and as well there are non-partisan groups that do the same thing for people with any party affiliation. You may not think your one vote counts, but the different political parties do, you wouldn't believe how much they scratch and claw for those single votes. "But I'm too lazy to pick up the phone to call someone for a ride." -- Put down the voter registration down and back away from the ballot!! ;-)

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Wait! I'm College educated,

Having gone to college (or College) does not make one educated.

>> I should get a lobotomy so I don't trample the rights of the uneducated?

Don't bother, no one would notice the difference.

Why is this even a good idea?

[D_Fresh]

I think the disadvantages of remote voting far outweigh the advantages. Sure, you include those who are homebound or somehow can't make it to the polling place, but you lose a whole lot more. When people are actually present at the polling place, you can guarantee that they:

• Are voting in a standardized fashion
• Are voting alone
• Only vote once
• Understand the voting instructions

Ironic that on the heels of the whole MS security discussion, and the rehash of the "computers will never be truly secure" conversation, that we somehow think that one of the fundamental tenets of our democracy can work not only on computers, but over the Internet. Doesn't anyone else see the lunacy of this proposition?

Now, computer terminals safely ensconced at the polling places themselves might offer a few advantages...

Pair it with information...

[Stonehand]

It would be amusing, were internet voting (or, for that matter, any computerized system like a touch screen) to ever be implemented, to have the system also provide information on the candidates. For instance, a full listing of all the financial information that the FEC requires, plus their voting record or other history as is relevant and of public record.

("Vote for ---? This candidate has been funded by... and his party has been funded by... Please confirm." ;) )

Plus, allow the candidates to specify a short statement, and maybe the same for news services. *shrug*

Internet voting would be discriminatory

[artemis67]

...against Palm Beach voters. They've figured out where the cup holder is on their computers, but haven't figured out why you need a rodent to operate it.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[CDWert]

I like this "I dont know enough about either American party" Youre not a US citizen ????

GUESS WHAT your COMMENTARY on OUR politics is MOOT.

You have NO fundemental understanding of the Democratic proccess here in the United States. It has been like this and always will be, look up Jim Crow laws.

There is no glibness, everyone is equal, to a point, and can vote, even with a Internet voting system in place.

REDUCING everyone to equal IS COMMUNISM.

Actually the POOR DO VOTE, Sometimes more often than the rich, Apathy infests the rich, not so true with the poor. Clinton being elected twice in this country is proof, MOST educated, upper class people (with the exception of liberals, in our country a socalist). COULDNT STAND HIM, He won his fist election with LESS than the MAJORITY vote, only some 40% of people in the US.

So what you are saying is, you have NO understanding of either our system, or parties, and yet you offer a foriegn comment on OUR process..This is rich....

Go back to the pub...........The UK's Govt is in such perfect shape I know you have nothign better to do than critisize ours.......Let me remind you OUR govt saved Europes ass TWICE

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[plague3106]

People who typically fail to vote because they don't feel like going out and waiting in line can do it in minutes from the comfort of their own home.

Could probably change that to 'from the confort of thier own cube' since i'm betting alot of people work on election day...

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[the_2nd_coming]

or perhaps it is the fact that one of my Jobs is working for the welfair office and I see how so many of these people are just freeloading because they "can't work because they have carple tunnle"
or how so many scam the system by providing bad information, not updating their situation, etc.

perhaps it is the fact that my friend is a nurse at an iner city hospital and she hears single mothers on welfair wonder why a mother would ever work because they need to be home with their kid.

hmmm perhaps it is that that makes me think the way I do.

don't misunderstand what I say as thinking that no one needs assistence, but there are so many that milk the system because they can, it just makes me sick.

oh, and a person on full programs, brings home the equivelant of around $45000 per year, so not having to work, and still having an ok life is a pretty good motivation if you ask me.

Could Still Work

[boatboy]

First, it should be pointed out that any problem inherent to at-home voting via the web already exists with mail-in ballots.

But, just because internet voting at home might not work, doesn't mean internet voting can't work. Presidential elections require a nationwide network. Right now, they use paper & "sneakernet", with lots of sneakers between points. Even if it has drawbacks, the internet is a much more efficient and secure nationwide network. It's just a matter of how to use it. Probably the first step would be to replicate as many of the paper processes as possible.

You could still benefit by replacing those old machines with touch-screen (or voice-activated, or braille, etc.) booths and VPN to a "tally server". Your client could have multiple interfaces, so if someone's too lame to understand the butterfly screen, give them the 'voting wizard' and a dancing paperclip to help out. On the server(s), you'd get near real-time results without media conglomerations swaying results with early "predictions". No chads, no democrats with stacks of punchcards in their car, and best of all, here's your recount:

SELECT COUNT(VOTERID) FROM VOTES WHERE CANDIDATE ='BUSH' AND STATE='FL'

Would Cowboy Neal be an option?

[naughtypenguin]

I would vote for cowboy neal. He could probably do a better job than most of the morons that are in office now. Besides, for all of the bashing he gets here on slashdot her deserves to have one of those purty little interns.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this crap down,

He isnt even a US citizen.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

> GUESS WHAT your COMMENTARY on OUR politics is MOOT.

Politically, sure. But if you think I'm incapable of affecting the way Americans (who's comments are not moot, according to your logic) think about their process, thats your own set of blinders.

> REDUCING everyone to equal IS COMMUNISM.

My dear scared friend, who said I wanted to reduce everything to equal? It's truely not my fault if you want to extropolate my 'moot comments' to an extreme that aligns with a political ideology I reject in my .sig. I'd simply rather say that things are so wildly unequal right now that we need more equality. Not total equality.

> Let me remind you OUR govt saved Europes ass TWICE

Thanks for the help, even though I'm not in Europe, assumer. Now, if only America could help nations because they actually wanted peace and freedom, not the IOU you seem to implicitly believe America deserves in these cases.

vote "no" on internet voting

[supernova87a]

Let me not address the technical issues of how people's identities will be validated if internet voting is tried -- that's an implementation problem, and I'm sort of a big picture kind of guy... :) Or just unqualified.

Instead, my question is how internet (or any type of remote, instantaneous) voting will affect people's attitudes toward elections in general.

I can, on the one hand, see how internet voting would open up great possibilities -- people's votes are counted exactly, no room for error, people don't have to trudge through rain or snow to get to the ballot box, people living overseas or traveling at the time can vote just as easily as people in their home district, and people who may not have had access to voting before now get a chance. Internet voting might also give people a more direct feeling of influence in a vote's outcome. If the results could be released immediately, you would see how your one vote stacked up with the rest of them.

But on the other hand, and what worries me more, is that these very advantages might erode the significance and importance of elections. Or, change it into something that I might not like. Is it possible that voting, if made so easy as a click of the mouse, placed right next to the CNN poll, would become as meaningless to the average person? If every day, we encountered 10 polls asking for our opinion, how would voting for a person for office be made something with more weighty consequences? I know how little thought I put into an online vote, how would most other people feel?

The thing about voting, the way it is now, is that the physical effort, trouble, or fact that it is an extra-ordinary event, gives it significance and reminds people that this isn't just another mouse click after opening a web page. I worry that if we make it too easy to vote, or too commonplace, people may forget what voting actually means. They ought to travel to polling places, and see the other people who're voting, see who the members of their community are, and at least be mildly provoked to consider thoughtfully what their physical vote translates into. To that end, we should make the current process of voting as easy and as fair as possible. We can improve the system of registration to make it easier, create more sophisticated voting machines, help people get to the polls if they have difficulty, remove barriers to people who have been unfairly treated -- by all means do these things -- but in the end, voting should remain a special event, I think.

Re:vote "no" on internet voting

[Stonehand]

They already take it pretty damn lightly. Go around and ask people what a PAC is, or what's the relevance of Buckley v. Valeo (OK, so that's mostly for campaign finance reform chaps. But still.) the FEC, or R-7486, the "Immigration and National Security Act" (I made that up. The designation isn't even one of the correct H.R.xxxx or S.xxxx forms. It wouldn'ts surprise me one bit if people still provided opinions on it.). Or how much research they did on the candidates. Or so forth. Some will even vote a straight party ticket 'coz their parents did, or their union does, or because their coworkers do, or because it's what the fellers in the van or bus who offered a lift to the polling place suggested.

It's a little late for it to remain a special event.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[CDWert]

Well, the IOU system was failed when we started it, EVERYONE lent to has defaulted. They want and take, but wont repay,

I am personally of the school we should go after our bad debts in the form of land or resource, england, russia, japan, etc. We SACRIFICED OUR BLOOD, for your people. Im an Isolationist too, so actuallly helping anyone is out of the question.

Youre correct, I apologize, I could tell from the speech pattern you were a UK'er, Canada, pretty much the same thing.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

Okay. Look at your economy, and how much it owes to exportation of goods and access to other markets. Look at how much the very life you live depends on the sacrifices of others. People die every day, all over the world, at the hands of American companies. We give our blood.

I'm sorry, but where is your IOU we should be able to cash for giving you access to our wallets and crushing our domestic industries?

In a related development...

[zurab]

The White House confirmed today that voting on the web was indeed not a good option. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesperson, elaborated in today's press conference that the main reason the president cited behind this stance was that Al Gore invented the Internet and it would not be a fair playing field.

On a more serious note, neither Democrats nor Republicans have yet figured out how they will control the election results after voting is completed since they wouldn't be counting ballots on a national TV, and running out the clock at their option. It was further troubling that Larry Ellison promised to provide free clustered database solution which was presumably "unbreakable", and would take only 2 seconds to count all votes instead of 3 months.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[LionATL]

If a person has been such a failure in life that they can't even afford or make sacrifices to own a barebones Internet capable computer and Internet access, I would prefer they not vote. These people do not have the intelligence or motivation to be trusted with the responsibility of electing officials to move our country forward.

If a person hasn't yet bothered to learn the basics of this "Internet" thing, I would prefer they not vote. As businesses, government and individuals rely more and more on the Internet to communicate, I don't want people who know nothing about the Internet to be trusted with the responsibility of electing officials that determine future Internet policy.

While I do believe that both secure Internet voting and traditional community polling places should be available, I believe increase in collective IQ and achievement oriented nature of voters from Internet-only voting would be a welcome result.

My, oh my!

[PHAEDRU5]

Aren't you an angry little person!

It strikes me, in reading your screed, that you believe people should be forced to live the way you deem proper. And you're willing to use government, that monopoly on force, to accomplish your goals.

I leave it to you to review the lessons of the last century. Though, God knows, I don't expect you to do so. Those who worship at the altar of Marx tend to have their eyes firmly focused on the future as their jackbooted feet trample to death the tens of millions who don't share the vision.

Re:My, oh my!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether you had noticed, but the taxation system has changed over the last century to encourage redistribution of wealth.

Maybe you are the one who is denying history? Perhaps you would like to go back to Victorian times. After all, everybody was much better off then, weren't they? I am sure you wouldn't mind spending a few hours sweeping my chimney to earn your tuppence a day - it does not sound like you are up to anything more intensive than that.

Re:My, oh my!

[SirSlud]

Arn't you an absolutes kind of person.

Learn history:

> And you're willing to use government, that monopoly on force

You deny history if you don't understand that the monopoly on force that government enjoys is responsible for the rise of capitalism. Look it up. Property rights are BACKED BY THE MONOPOLY ON FORCE. If the government wasn't there, who's to stop people from stealing your wealth when they perceive you have too much?

God, don't you understand that the monopoly on force is the only thing keeping thousands upon thousands of 'lazy' poor people from rushing into your house and beating the crud out of you? Do you really want to disband that monopoly on force? I dare you man, I dare you. There'd be alot more planes crashing into buildings, I can assure you, not that I'm condoning or supporting those actions. I'm only saying that the monopoly on force is what keeps poor people from taking what they don't believe is rightfully yours.

Re:My, oh my!

[PHAEDRU5]

Well, thanks for not replying as an Anonymous Coward.

Other than that, well:

- Thanks for ignoring the parts of my reply that didn't suit you.

- Property rights are actually endowed by your Creator. If they weren't, then slavery wouldn't be an issue. (You know, my property rights start with me.) Property rights are usually maintained by force, since the majority of humanity is not smart enough to realize that enlightened self-interest is the basis of a happy life.

- The government's monopoly on force is gradually being used to convert the populace to a majority that enjoys bread and circuses at my expense, and votes for opression in order to remain entertained and fed.

- Of course, less than 100% of taxes are converted to bread and circuses because the government has to keep itself healthy and well-fed.

- I accept your argument that I'm responsible for my own defense. By dint of effort and smarts I have that capability.

Re:My, oh my!

[PHAEDRU5]

Anoymous ad hominem is the first refuge of the jackal.

Re:My, oh my!

[SirSlud]

>Property rights are actually endowed by your Creator.

Now now. Again with the absolutes. No one is saying you don't have from-birth property rights to yourself. Slavery should always be an issue, because it should be a fundamental human value that ownership of another human is wrong. Slavery was (is?) only enforcable by virtue, of, again, state enforced authority. Property rights to Bill Gate's car collection is another story. This sytem says he's entitled to it, the laws back it, but I contend that if a majority of people feel he is not deserving of them, then society and social behaviour is being forced to bend at the behest of laws, our economy, and authority. I content that laws, the economy, and authority were created and should be utilized to reflect and enforce the interest of the majority.

> the majority of humanity is not smart enough to realize that enlightened self-interest is the basis of a happy life

Poor conditioned you. I ignored other parts of your post because they rest on your conditonned axioms.

> I accept your argument that I'm responsible for my own defense. By dint of effort and smarts I have that capability

You might assume responsibility, but I highly doubt the capability part. Like I said, if it were you and only you, you'd have been looted by other sufficiently conditionned have-nots.

Re:My, oh my!

[PHAEDRU5]

You do have a pretty grim view of humanity.

I mean, in your view there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it's unevenly distributed by a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution.

The only way have-nots can overcome this is to rise up, murder the haves, and take what they will. Government is instituted to stop this from happening.

I'm afraid that you're starting to pass a lot of the tests for paranoid schizophrenia.

Of course, it may just be my "conditioning" speaking.

Re:My, oh my!

[SirSlud]

>in your view there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and it's unevenly distributed by a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution

So there is unlimited land, right? Unlimited water? Unlimited food? Mainstream ecologists and anthropologists point out that it would take 5 earths to supply humanity with the standard of living westerners enjoy. Do some reading.

> a minority that shapes the laws to maintain the uneven distribution

It isn't always this way, in every society, but yes, thats where we are now. IMF loans to developing nations feature interest rates 30 times that of what the Allies felt was sufficient punishement to Germany, post WWII.

I'm not a paranoid schizo in aknowledging that even the WTO admits in its annual report that its attempts to use free market tactics to encourage growth have failed in every but one country that they placed under IMF's free-market privatization tactics. I'm not paranoid in aknowledging that current economic data says that if you make 35,000$ canadian (roughly, what, 17,000$ american), you're richer than 98% of all other people on this planet. Or that the gap has rised over the past 20 years. Even the WTO, the biggest endorsers of your attitudes, admit that it hasn't worked, with, predictably, the caveat, "yet".

It is really not my fault that your small mind is incapable of understanding that if everyone worked as hard as you, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. So, yes, your government is working hard to delay the widespread realization of this reality; a reality is so frightening that I understand you reject it on the basis of its depressive nature alone.

Re:My, oh my!

[PHAEDRU5]

Well, there is unlimited human potential. Of course, as I write this I'm considering you, a strong counter-argument.

I don't quite know how we got from voting to the WTO, except perhaps that your possibly deranged, and certainly conspiracy-theory-oriented mind can't keep focused on a particular point for any length of time. Been taking your meds?

My basic point is that universal sufferage and vote-by-internet are bad things because politicians are happy to use their monopoly on power to institute taxpayer-funded vote-buying schemes.

You already admit I own me. Well, I want to own my labor. I want to be able sell myself at the highest price and keep the pay I earn. I want politicans to keep their hands out of my pockets and I want people to pay their own way.

Re:My, oh my!

[SirSlud]

Yes, I know we're off topic, but if you can't follow where we came from and why I went to the WTO, perhaps you are misunderstanding things.

We both agree that vote-by-internet is bad.

However, our reasoning is different. I brought up the WTO, because you're reasoning amounts to "I dont want the government to be able to do more vote-buying, they are too powerful already, I want to vote for whoever lets me keep as much of what I make as possible (probably all?)", and I got to the WTO because I wanted to point out that government is the might behind your desire to retain more. The government is what prevents people from tearing down your desire to earn more, and the fact that you will take any opportunity, fair or not, in the eyes of your society, to do as much. The government backs the social value of greed as pushed by big business (wrapped and sold in the form of advertising), and ignores the individual's perception of what consistuates a fair gain for your efforts.

There isn't even unlimited human potential. The laws of thermodynamics pretty much dictate that the more powerful you get, the closer you get to having to accept the bottom line of a fixed amount of energy and resources. So, the real question should be, how do we live happily, with minimal social friction, while still maintaing opportunities to pursue our interests? Many societies have achieved this, with varying degrees of downside, inequality, etc. Not one has achieved this goal with the axiomatic value of self-interest you claim is the Right Way to Go.

I could point out why, but I'm confident that we will find out in due time. In the meantime, why don't you extend your current attitude and prevent people who dont pay as much taxes as you (the poor) from using the roads taxes are used to build and maintain, and see how far you get with that. Deny them voting. Deny them education to! Oh, and no loans. And deny them any access to anything unless they work very hard. And even then, tell them they arn't working hard enough, and deny them more. Keep denying them until they meet your level of approval, and then .. well shit, now who's going to clean your sewers and map your floors?

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[bryan1945]

I honestly believe that this is the first time I've heard someone criticized for working hard. This guy/gal wants to provide for his family and you're fragging him/her? Pretty harsh.

I'm also interested in how you think things should be (as you say above, we shouldn't have to work for anything), and how we are going to achieve that. Magic? Star Trek Monetary Compensators? Nice try, please come back when you make sense.

Journalistic integrity on the up?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, this is probably all to true.

Did Taco actually make an effort to verify this? Oh, it's just an expression.

Other electronic options

[hether]

What about elections by mobile phone? They are trying that in the UK -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsi d_1802000/1802956.stm

Would that be any more viable than voting online? My thought is that the percentage of people with phones in the UK and Europe is so much greater than in the US that it might not be an option right now.

The BBC article also mentions voting by digital television. That's the first I've heard of that option. What percentage of people in the US, or for that matter the UK, have digital tv available to them??

Here is another BBC article that talks about the fraud that could occur with online voting -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsi d_1799000/1799883.stm

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[bryan1945]

This is the first fucking thing that made sense in this entire thread.

What the hell is this guy's problem? Technology is not a right, and what is so special about voting from home? What, save an hour once a year, if that? Woopee.

My Doubts in Public Services.......

[Pika]

Unfortunately, it's best to leave the burden on the people, and not the government.

If we were to allow internet voting, the burden would now be on the government to provide a secure and accomodating large scale solution.

Let me ponder their previous track record.... the Post Office.... IRS.... DMV. hmmmmm.

I sincerely doubt that the government can provide a viable solution without introducing hordes of bureaucracy and inneficiencies, especially on an endevor of this magnitude.

The sad part is, the burden is best left on the people. If we want a fair and efficient voting process, people will still have to leave work, find their polling place, and cast their vote manually.

However.. I would entertain the thought of a solution developed by private industry, but that opens up a new can....

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[bryan1945]

"...for those on the flip side of unfairness..."

Fuck 'em. If they can't pull themselves up, too bad. Don't bother telling me that I don't understand- I've been places you can't imagine.

what problems?

[anthony_dipierro]

Privacy, security, and reliability, all seem like problems that are easy to solve. Just give each person in the U.S. a CD with their public/private key when they register to vote. As an added bonus we'd eliminate spam.

For example: Every state requires that votes be cast in secret, but how can officials verify that a party hack isn't standing beside a remote voter?

Simple solution: let them change their vote. Even if someone watches them vote, that's no more than their word that they won't change it.

YEt again, modded down by a humorless idiot.

[Unknown Poltroon]

Will you fucking moderators please just leave well enough alone? Why was this modded down? It was actaully relevant to the discussion, and humors. Whoever modded this down is obviously a humorless drone. I find myeself rooting for the goatsex guy more and more.

Internet = People!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that we're still stuck with our country identity! When is the internet society going to take over the current political system? C'mon I want to see that SOON. United and OPEN.

but security isn't the only issue

[snowberg]

security is certainly an issue, but with any electronic means there isn't a way to physically audit the election. if the computer's bits say that x votes were for someone, there isn't anyway to really say, "are you sure?" as you can do with a manual recount of paper ballots.

Supreme Court did not give Bush victory

[Anonymous Coward]

The Florida voters gave Bush the victory. All the Supreme Court did was halt another attempt to tamper with the ballots.

nonsequitur

[Kwantus]

*jiggies* wow! /. takes posts from my konqi again! whee! 8)

maidens lobbing swords is the way to go...

[malfeitor]

I think democratic voting is outdated anyways. Each political candidate from each respective party should go to a lake (any lake) and wait. It will be very clear who is chosen when a maiden rises from the lake and gives them a sword. This is how it's done in every other country. We should do it that way in ours. No internet involved, and besides what's the internet anyways?

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[CDWert]

Noone said YOU HAD to buy.

America did quite well, BEFORE it stated participating in a global marketplace, better than it does now. We had our OWN SELF sufficient industry. Contained within, we needed imports of VERY few items, prior to th 70 oil wasnt needed as an import. Rubber, Sugar and a few hard raw materials were the only imports needed.

I would GLADLY see america's import/export closed, it would be a boon to our domestic industry hard at first but much better in the long run, CAN NAFTA, and make all who import pay tarriff, heavy ones, they make us why not us them ?

My life depends little on others sacrifice, myself and my family HAVE sacrificed much, for 200 years every generation except my father's has fought in our military. We have sacrificed in industyr as well, NOW you tell me what good ANY of those sacrifices did for US no, in WWI and WWII ? Europe is free, but how does that help Me ? I live in the states.

It always kills me outsiders views on this country, I have travelled ALL over the world, and they have No clue what is going on here. I guss if they did , THEY would be the singularly most powerfull nation on earth, as we are. Militarily, Economically, Socially, etc. I guess the point is they dont get it, if they did they would be where we have been the last 100 years.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

> if they did they would be where we have been the last 100 years

Anthropologists point out that much of the success of western nations is due to the avaiability of steel (to make guns), the availability of farmable land, and the way germs and desiese is spead around our ecosystem by way of weather systems. So I wouldn't feel so smug about justifying the methods with the results. There's nothing to say America didn't just luck out with the land.

However, I agree with your views on import exports. Kill NAFTA, and lets get back to serving our own countries needs. I'm down with that, and frankly, its refreshing to hear you say that.

But note: by the same token that people do not understand the US ... they are different people. Humans have cultures, and some cultures dont value the things that makes the American system function. Yes, they have no idea what goes on in America, but Americans (barring those who've done sufficient travelling) are in exactly the same quandry. I've been through 30 of the 50 states, have friends down there .. an 90% of our culture is exported from the states. In fact, as much as Canadians are maligned for being more politically and socially aligned with the UK, the fact that we primarily consume American culture says to me that if we arn't already converted to American economic and social ideologies, we will be, as a majority, within the next decade. So people /do/ have a clue what its like to be American; but people don't want to be like Americans arn't automatically identifying themselves as people who don't understand how it works or why it works for them. Essentially, American culture is all about flaunting and expanding and embracing, so you have to understand its quite difficult for people in other countries to be objective about it. Just because they don't want to be the singularly most powerful nation on earth doesn't mean they have no right to disagree with the current methods and ideologies of the singularly most powerful nation on earth.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that 50% of the population does not have a computer right? And they're not all "loosers" either. Your thinking like a typical ivory tower snob. Maybe you should personally put a computer in everyones home so they can vote. Then you can come back here and spew your crap...

secret ballot == protection from coersion

[Anonymous Coward]

If we allow for internet voting, how can we prevent some thug standing next to you to be sure you vote for the "right" candidate? This would give organized (as well as less-organized) crime an opportunity to corrupt government far beyond what the lobbyists have done so far. And just imagine what Big Tobacco (or some other well-financed special interest group) could do under those circumstances. Hell, imagine what organized religion could do: "Vote for the democrate and you're going to hell." "Make sure that your brethren in God don't slide down the slippery slope."

The bottom line is that without a guarantee of secrecy (on the large-scale), the voting process would be exposed to corruption so bad, Iraq would have freer elections.

The article shows a big lack of insight!

[jurik]

The article says it's impossible because alot of different things can't be satisfied:

• Anonymity/Privacy
  
• Infrastructure
  
• Vote buying/Should "surfing"
  
• Vulnerability to hackers
  

Most of these are easy to solve with trivial teqniques, and really
shows that the article shows that it is a restriction of peoples minds
and not the e-voting as such. It's easy to argument against everything
if you use the old way of thinking, and don't do the necessary research
into what is possible. I'll try and address the points and show that
there are teqniques to make them atleast as good as todays normal elections
and maybe even better.

A note I would like to make before embarking on this journey is that
elections should atleast until a certain amount of trust is gotten be
combined with normal election, so that people who doesn't feel confident
in the new system can always use the old. This is also due to all the
script kiddies out there who pose a major problem in terms of DOS attacks.

Anonymity/Privacy:

This is the point that is the most important about
democracy and therefore also the one that should be stressed the most.
The funny part about this is that it has been known how to do this for
the last 5 years following a paper by R. Cramer, R. Gennaro and
B. Schoenmakers: A
Secure and Optimally Efficient Multi-Authority Election Scheme and
probably before that by others. This is done with homomorphic encryption
which can be compared to putting your vote into a box and locking it.
Then you can take all the locked boxes and combine them into 1 big
(without opening them) and then open the big box and get the result, which
will tell nothing about what each person voted (unless they all voted the
same). And there are alot of other schemes that improve this in certain
ways or make voting in other ways. An example that improves the above
(from exponential decryption to polynomial) is by M. Jurik and I. Damgaard:
A Generalisation, a Simplification
and some Applications of Paillier's Probabilistic Public-Key System.

Infrastructure:

This is probably the thing they're most right about. The problem is that
to make something sufficiently secure you need digital signatures and
that means you need a PKI (public key infrastructure). There are different
ways to do this. First you could require everyone that want's to use
the internet voting to register a public key. Secondly you could distribute
key cards. These 2 are both cumbersome and expensive, which is why I
tend to agree with the article on this point. But there are products out
there that can solve this easily eg.
Cryptomathic which has a
product named easy sign (got to products->Trust Products->easy Sign). In
short this sets up a server that has all the secret keys stored in a
secure way and users can the get the server to sign for them by using
a password system. This is not optimal in terms of security but it is
very close and it grants an very cheap PKI.

Vote buying/Should "surfing":

This is a real problem to e-vote, since you can't really see the person
doing this, but it is also one that with just a little bit of thought
can be done pretty easily. To avoid that anyone gives away their chip
card, password etc. you just bind it to the government information, so
that you can always go to a web site and get your health record, IRS
numbers and stuff like that with the same means of authentication. That
means that if you give it away you will not only give your vote away, but
also alot of personal information. To avoid that you have someone stand
behind you and make sure you vote the right thing, you can introduce
regret offices, where you on the election day can come down and get you
vote changed (getting your signature and the election offices signature)
and then this will override votes that was made over the internet.

As a last point I would like to make is that today it is also possible to
buy votes, either with fake IDs (which might not even be need in certain
places) or give the vote a micro camera and make them take a picture
that they have voted what you wanted.

Vulnerability to hackers:

This I'll only briefly discuss since the 2 papers mentioned in the
anynomity/privacy section actually provide threshold decryption,
which means that if a certain fractions of the servers (>50%) is online
and non-hacked then the correct result can be found. If the servers
is running different hardware and software configurations, it would
take a _extremly_ good hacker to accomplish this in 1 day.
As for DOS there isn't much you can do, but you can always distribute
things which means that the attack will have to be larger to accomplish
total breakdown.

These are my views and I don't say that they are flawless, but they do
give a fair amount of security. There is 1 more point I'll like to
stress which was not in the article since this might actually be an
improvement. The 2 articles mentioned above provides what is known as
universal verifiability, which means that it gives any person the
possibility of checking that the result is correct (given enough
computing power). Now that would be something most americans
would have liked in Florida ?

Why so sad???

[theoddone33]

There are people who only leave their computers once every year or two to vote in elections. The exercise they get from voting is probably the only thing sustaining their little Internet lives. Why do you want to take that away from these people?!

Seriously folks, the Internet isn't for everything, and we're all fortunate that it's not.

More ways to ch33t!

[Ken Dale]

One more way for Al Gore to attempt to cheat the election just like he did selling cigarettes all over the US and leaving poles open past the deadline

not to mention half of the dead people who voted in the election and the funny thing is he went thru all that trouble and he still lost anyhow

gg :-)

... well at least the recounts would be alot faster

Re:More ways to ch33t!

[erink42]

damn politicians, leaving all those cylindrical structures open.....

If you are going to make vast, unfounded and incorrect generalizations, you could at least spell them correctly.

pole -->poll

thru -->through

alot --> a lot

not to mention the grammar....

Maybe if it was Gore's budget instead of Bush's, there would be funding to educate people so they would perhaps have informed opinons and be able to express them coherently.

Problem or Feature?

[heliocentric]

The problem with the Slashdot polling engine is that CowboyNeal would be a candidate in every election...

Problem or feature?

Damn.

[eAndroid]

Damn.

Revoting

[srichman]

To do this by computer means that you have to keep the on-line ballots linked to the person's name until the polls close.

Why? It needn't be linked to the actual name. It could, for instance, be linked to a public key. Or a one-type "revocation" public key that gets issued when you cast your vote. Most likely, though, you wouldn't use vanilla pulic-key crypto for revocation, but some form of zero-knowledge authentication to further obfuscate the identity of the voter: some question would be embedded into the original vote that only the original voter would be able to provide a ZKP for at "revote time."

Further reading material

[742Evergreen]

Anyone who has ever read Comp.risks will be familiar with this subject. I think this group is mandatory reading material for anyone involved in computer science.

Peter Neumann has written a lot of insightful comments on electronic elections. Check out the "Electronic Voting" part of his page, which can be found here.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[wkw3]

I'm wealthy, I'm not a communist, and I'll make my own decisions based on my knowledge and convictions thank you very much.

The FBI's wet dream

[Nautilus]

That'd solve the pesky "key escrow" problem, as yet another added bonus.

Re:The FBI's wet dream

[anthony_dipierro]

That'd solve the pesky "key escrow" problem, as yet another added bonus.

Only a fool would use their government-issued public/private key for anything other than signing purposes.

Re:The FBI's wet dream

[Nautilus]

Only a fool would use their government-issued public/private key for anything.

If they handed you the private key, they have a copy of it themselves. If you use that key and it becomes associated with you, then they can use that key and claim you used it. That's enough of a deterrent for me, thanks.

And I'm not even the most paranoid of my friends.

Re:The FBI's wet dream

[anthony_dipierro]

If they handed you the private key, they have a copy of it themselves.

Obviously in theory they would destroy any copies of the keys. It would take quite a conspiracy at many levels to keep a repository of all the keys and not let the public know. That being said, it is still possible, so...

If you use that key and it becomes associated with you, then they can use that key and claim you used it.

Maybe against strangers, but my friends and family are going to believe me before they'll believe some cryptographic sequence (and apparently your paranoid friends will as well). As for strangers, I believe that the government already has the power to tell lies about me if they really want to. They could easily fabricate an audio recording, and possibly even a video recording. That's going to convince the public a lot more than some possibly cracked, possibly stolen, possibly subverted prime number.

The reason they wouldn't do this very often (if at all) is because every time they do it, they blow their cover, and more people know that they are secretly keeping keys. Of course all of those people who discover that information and can't be intimidated must be either killed or made into a lunatic in the eyes of the public, and there's only so many people you can kill or make into a lunatic without getting caught. So as long as you only use the keys for low-profile things (and even then perhaps only with people you can't establish a secure channel with), the government's not going to bother blowing its cover.

In my particular example, to eliminate spam, the signature is merely used in the first correspondence between complete strangers. That email might really be from Joe Schmoe from Topeka, KS, it might be Joe's sister, who stole the CD, or it might really be from the government, but I don't really care, because I have about the same level of trust for all three of those people. What I can do is check if the key is in a list of known spammers, and decide whether I want to bother opening it based on that. Unless the government is willing to blow its cover to send me spam, it makes no sense for them to steal anyone's private key.

bit ballots

[nege]

cast your bit!
mtv: rock the bit!

Dangers of Internet Voting: Casual Voting

[MaineCoon]

All other reasons and problems aside... if voting is too easy and casual, then voters start voting casually.

Casual voting is dangerous. People are much more likely to be more informed before voting if they have to travel somewhere and take half an hour to vote, than if all they have to do is sit down at a computer at home, go to a website, click a few buttons, type a few lines, and walk away 2 minutes later.

The more effort involved in doing something, the more likely people are to think things through.

The last thing I want is a president voted in through casual voters.

- Chris Jacobson

Re:Dangers of Internet Voting: Casual Voting

[Oswald]

I agree it's a bad thing if people choose their representatives during a football commercial. But it gets worse later on. If we ever fall into this trap of click-to-vote to pick our President and Congressmen, it won't be long before there's a movement to start calling referenda for every little question that comes up. Idiots all over the country will start hollering for "true democracy," and before you know it the rights of every minority in the country will be trampled. Our current legislative branch may not be a bunch of geniuses, but they do appear to give a passing nod to writing legislation that will pass judicial review. If we go to internet voting, I don't thing 20 Supreme Courts would be able to keep up with the wave of mindless, unconstitutional, WASP-centric, daytime talk-show quality crap that would get voted into law. (No offense to my fellow mindless, unconstitutional WASPs.)

Non-US citizens should vote for the US president

[Dr. Spork]

Damn... I was hoping we could have an internet world elections in the near future.

The trend that the USA will be our world boss will probably continue. Seeing that the choice of US president probably has as much impact on citizens of other countries as it does on US residents, I think we should let foreign citizens have some say as to who our president is. In a very real way, s/he governs the entire world, so most of the world is being governed without its consent. Internet voting would be one easy way in which we could give foreigners some input into our elections. (BTW, this is a joke, in the sense that I know this could never happen--though I do seriously think it would be the right thing to do, and the world would become a better place because of it.)

Not without cryptography

[meggito]

Not until everyone has a very long cryptographic signature will this be practical. That coupled with secure encryption to send the message without anyone reading it...

Its possible, even now, but people don't know what they need or have what they need. If everyone set up a really large RSA style set of keys we'd be set and ready to go (despite the difficulty of counting it).

The only problem is that the government would have to run a key depository thing and give signatures and such. Honestly, I think it is quite possible to set up a system now where this could be done by anyone wishing to do so.

Oh, and in 10 years someone might find a backdoor and look up your past votes or spend a long time breaking them or some such. There are other issues to work out, but maybe someone should be working them out damn it.

Oh, and sidenote. Mr Taco sir, its "too" as in also rather than "to" god damn it.

Voting in the internet is possible

[lanttis]

Just for your information, Finland was the first country in the world to officially announce it possible to vote through the internet. That is a fact, because I have done it myself. So that is a rather importaint thing to remember when going out and shouting that voting in the Internet is impossible.

To anyone with moderation points out there...

[WIAKywbfatw]

This is not flamebait. The person who moderated it as such should be ashamed.

How would you like it if your rights were stripped from you in this manner?

Disencfranchisement of thousands of votes through beaurocratic incompetency is incredible thing to see in a country that prides itself on being a beacon for democracy.

Isn't free speech one of the bedrocks of American society? Or is the First Amendment a figment of my imagination?

Short of devoting a large chunk of their life to public service, being able to vote is the only chance the average citizen has to voice his/her beliefs on how their society should be governed.

Voting and free speech don't just go hand in hand, voting is free speech.

Next time you step up to the ballot box, or even open your mouth to complain about being given a latte instead of a mocha, imagine how mad you'd feel if someone ripped that ballot paper out of your hand, or stuffed a gag in your mouth so you couldn't raise the issue.

Remember, democracy isn't just for you, it's for everyone out there too. Otherwise, it's not democracy.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[SirSlud]

>she hears single mothers on welfair wonder why a mother would ever work because they need to be home with their kid

You're right! Fuck the kids! Live for yourself, girl!

The point is, if one cannot survive by working part time (and you can't), with kids, you're saying that the time the mother spends with the kid is less important than her spending most of her waking hours making sure they have something to eat, rather than have someone there to help them grow and mature as humans. Shit, don't put the cart in front of the horse. I'm all for equality, meaning men should stay home as much as women, but to suggest that people should put their career ahead of their kids does as much of a disservice to society (although not as immediately, quantifiably, or visually) as does welfare freeloaders.

And lets not forget .. the greed I see in my 200K earning bosses shows up in the culture and society, and thats why people want to bilk the system. If you feel top money earners dont scam the system as much as welfare freeloaders do, you're one very naive and inexperienced worker.

shame

[Anonymous Coward]

i say if you truly care enough for democracy and the effects you have on it then you should get off your lazy ass and GO TO THE POLLS. internet voting = stupid. if you dont wanna make the trip then stay home and let the SMART people run the country cause obviously you dont deserve to vote.

Both Too Easy and Too Hard

[wfaulk]

Is it possible that voting, if made so easy as a click of the mouse, placed right next to the CNN poll, would become as meaningless to the average person?

Don't forget the converse of this. For many people, this isn't easy, because they don't own a computer. To you and me, voting on the computer seems the simplest of things, ignoring implementation, but to the millions of people below the poverty line, even considering buying a computer is beyond their means. Now, I know that it's possible that we could also have public terminals from which the underprivileged could vote, but even that is discriminatory. Forcing the poor to get out of the house (or away from their two jobs) to go to a facility to vote while the more affluent get to spend two minutes doing the same thing from the comfort of their homes while still in their pajamas is wrong. That will end up meaning that the affluent have a more strongly heard voice than those less fortunate, and that is, very simply, wrong.

Re:Maintain the Status Quo even easier! - on the '

[the_2nd_coming]

by not supporting your children you are saying "fuck the kids"

you are showing them that you do not need to have responsability in life and IMO you are being selfish since it is an obviouse excuse for being lazy in life since I am sure the mother is not responsable at home even.

Remember, we are talking about sngle mothers, not married or even thoughs with boy friends.

i'm in for president

[Anonymous Coward]

moo fuckaz
Cyber - Bandal

cOMON, MOD ME DOWN AGAIN, YOU STUPID ASS

[Unknown Poltroon]

coMON,

Why home voting is infeasible at present

[D.R.Jefferson]

The security problems with voting from home platforms in public elections are almost insurmountable in the short term. Even if voter authentication and encryption were perfect> , we still have to worry about the following problems, for which there are no easy solutions: 1) Widespread virus infection of computers used for voting: The virus code could be silent until you vote; then it could prevent you from voting, or change your vote, and erase itself. Could be launched from anywhere in the world, even out of reach of U.S. law, e.g. Iraq. 2) Remote control attack: Sysadmins can use remote control software to spy on votes, or block them, or change them. 3) Automated peer-to-peer or centralized Internet vote selling / buying schemes: Think "votester". Again, can be launched or coordinated from anywhere. 4) Denial of service attack: Can disenfranchise voters in last hours of election. 5) Spoofing attack: Please click here to vote for the Green Party. 6) On-screen electioneering: Suppose your ISP presents political ads in your browser window right when you connect to a voting site. 7) Digital divide: Not all voters have equal access to the Internet. 8) Platform divide: All platforms that voters are likely to have must be supported equally. Not just PCs, but Macs (and Palms, ...). Not just Windows & MacOS, but Linux(!). Not just MSIE, but other browsers. Etc. These are among the reasons (there are several others!) why the California Secretary of State's study recommended not diving into home voting any time soon--at least until these problems are solved. Other national studies, e.g. the National Science Foundation study and the Caltech-M.I.T. study, concurred.

Re:Non-US citizens should vote for the US presiden

[Anonymous Coward]

You're smoking foriegn crack it you "seriously think it would be the right thing to do, and the world would become a better place because of it." Do you have any insight whatsoever on how elections are done in South American countries? Ever have any insight whatsoever that elections were somewhat corrupt to begin with? And now you are/were suggesting that the US allow all of the worlds creatures to have a say? Go back to your country. Now that is ignorance.