Slashdot Mirror
Could E-Voting Cure Voter Apathy?
Bendebecker notes that The Register
is saying that "A major trial is about to kick off in the UK that could help decide whether e-voting is merely a gimmick or whether it can genuinely help cure voter apathy." Voter Apathy or Flash Poll Elections? What is the lesser of 2 evils?
The mechanism for voting will have little impact on current apathy. A significant proportion of the country doesn't vote because they have little or no faith in politicians and their constant lies, double standards, corruption and inability to keep promises. Sure, clicking a button will make it easier to vote but you're stilling voting for the same distrustful candidates.
More people will vote which will, unfortunately, lead to even dumber leaders!
The cure is more democracy. Abolish the electoral college. Make elections publicly funded, and ban private funding. Implement proportional representation to break the "two-party" system.
. . . and as long as I'm in fantasyland, let's build a time-travel device, and create a perpetual motion machine.
We live in a day and age when people are lazy as hell and if you were to create something easier more people would participate, however, I wouldn't say that this would 'cure' anything.
The basis of how effective a cure would be can only be measured by how drastic the measure taken against said ailment.
Not until we can devise a foolproof way of ensuring against voter fraud that the layperson can understand.
Schneier makes an attempt at this but it's pretty convoluted, I'm not even sure I understand it all and I at least know a little about this kind of stuff.
We may have to consider publishing who a person votes for. I know it goes against the grain of a longstanding tradition, but to make the protocol simple enough for the average person to understand while keeping it free of fraud may require nothing less.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It's not worth driving down to the voting booth, waiting in line, but if this process were easy though, it could help clear things up.
I think this would have an age-gap stopper though, since you're mostly going to see the younger people getting into the "e-voting is cool" phase (and many older generation can't even use a PC), at least at first.
What we really need though, is a system to be able to vote on issues that are important to us. If we combined a system that took the parliamentary vote, along with combined citizen votes (net-votes, etc) - at least we'd have more say in things.
Would a belief that the candidates are not chosen (through funding) by corporations and lobbies perhaps increase voting?
Would a non-binding "none of the above" give people a way to come out and make a statement, rather than stay home and not vote at all?
Would a "check off all acceptable candidates" (not 1-4, just yeah/nay) make a difference and broaden the number of parties from the republicrat monopoly?
Or is the answer closed source voting software controlled by questionably influenced companies?
E-voting would go far to curing voter apathy, but would almost guarantee problems.
1) This would be the biggest shiniest target for hackers around the world. What a convienent way to subvert the American democracy... From your desk in China! And much cheaper than giving huge donations to the democratic party!
2) This would be the biggest target for hackers in the US. All those crazy Libertarian high-tech industry workers would finally get a Libertarian president. Who cares if the exit polls dont even remotely match the outcome of the election? They don't now. Which brings me to...
3) This would be just as bad as the electronic voting systems that are being released now... The source would be owned by a private company and proprietary. All changes would be controlled by them. Its frightening how little accountability there is in the current system. It would be just as bad online. Worse yet, the founder and former CEO of the largest electronic voting systems vendor is a Republican Senator. Which might explain why exit polls in states where electronic voting systems are used no longer match the actual outcome of the election any longer.
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
And your only reward for registering to vote is being called for jury duty. Which isnt fun.
It might sound neat, like a Law and Order episode, but basically you have to sit there for 3 days during selection, and if you make the jury, you get to sit for another week to hear how Clevon McDingleshit sold a bag of crack to some cop.
Boo to voting!
Now, there should be a massively multiplayer version of Postal 2, and they can base policies on who the players are taking out their frustrations on. (Sorry but I just got that game and it's friggin hilarious)
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Could E-Voting Cure Voter Apathy?
Who cares.
Do we get a Cowboyneal option?
Jason Lotito
You mean I don't even have to get off my butt to go vote anymore? I can just vote between rounds of Counterstrike? I wonder, do I need to know who the people are I'm voting for? Maybe someone will paypal me to vote for one of the people?
bbh
There is one huge problem. No-one can verify that you really have cast the vote and not your Hitler-loving-neighbour-with-huge-shotgun. Buying votes or forcing people to vote would become a huge issue. (Of course this seems to happen in someplaces today, but surely not everywhere)
IVAN Nethack is not the king anymore.
This is good for slashdotters. Currently, you have to haul your lazy ass down to the voting station, and lots don't want to do this. Voting results are thus skewed towards the will of the politically active. The politicians surely know this, and pander to them.
Online voting will allow the lazy of ass to participate, and thus skew the results more towards the technologically aware individuals. Again, the politicians will be aware of this, and would start taking technological issues more seriously, to pander to us!
If voting were simpler, those people disillusioned with the two bipartisan condidates might be more willing to cast their vote for a third-party candidate.
Also, eVoting would perhaps lessen the value of the poor voter. While lazy upper/middle-class voters with home computers and Internet connections could easily vote, those without them are still unlikely to vote.
---
Take it sleazy,
-The Shockmaster
Voter participation should likewise increase through the use of varied voting methods, including one that can be easily done from home.
(1) Anyone who is too lazy to go to a polling station should not be voting anyway. If they do not care enough to make that much effort, then it is highly unlikely that they would care enought to get informed, and make a good choice.
(2) If people are apathetic because they do not like any of the choices available then making it easier to vote will have no effect (let's see - would you like to eat broken glass or dog-food? Would delivery to your door-step make the choice easier?).
(3) If people are apathetic because they would be equally happy with either party then again making it easier to vote will not make a difference.
but what will actualy be going on is that people will knock on the doors of apathetic voters and will ask for their voter ID number. once that is gotten the person who now has the number can vote how ever they like for that person.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
1. It gets me out of this chair that my but is glued to 18 hours a day.
2. They have cookies and juice
3. I get a nifty little sticker that says "I voted"
1) hassling with going down there and voting.
e-voting would cure this
2) voting gets you on the jury duty list. e-voting
won't cure this. screw voting because screw
jury duty. your vote doesn't count if you don't
have money. anyone saying anything else is either
ignorant or an MTv exec.
"rock the vote" my ass.
I thought about going to RTFA and posting something meaningful, but eh why bother....
Is not voting really apathy? Why is not voting a valid statement?
How many people do you know that get to work, see the "I Voted Today" stickers on their co-workers, realize that its election day, then realize that they don't have time to go vote?
This way they could just take 5 minutes, log on, vote, log out, and be done with it.
Not that this will solve the real problems with politics.
When will people realize that the most effective Congressman is the one who passes no more laws than absolutely necessary?
Its like the effective System Administrator. If he does his job right, he shouldn't have to work more than 10 minutes a day, except when he's installing new systems.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
The postal vote only trials showed a not unnoticable increase in voting compared to areas that did not try postal voting. I dont recall how many of these were spoiled votes, though.
I would be concerned if it lead to some people treating the election as they would a slashdot poll, selecting whatever took their fancy instead of a considered decision as to who want to [not] represent your opinion [that means fuck all to them].
I would like to see online voting used for referendums for things that would otherwise not be brought to the public vote, though.
I know how people vote when they go to a web poll and don't know who to decide upon. Polls, and elections, throughout the day, tell people who is winning, loosing, and by how much. With online voting, you will be able to tell instantly who is on top and thus you can use that to vote. Bush and Gore, if they were running again, would be neck and neck. You don't like them and you see they are so close, so rather than have your vote break the tie, you vote for somebody else. The idea of graphs and statistics would actually make voting more chaotic... although more people might turn out to vote, just to see how insane they can make the polls...
Making something easier doesn't mean people will suddenly and magically care about it. As for E-voting, it kind of scares me. Seems like too many people are gung-ho over the ease of use and lack of hanging chads, and aren't worried about the lack of a paper trail...
"President Jeff K" .
...but there were mass emails involved to raise awareness, with convenient hyperlinks in the emails. Unless everyone is given a government-supplied email address that they would check regularly, it's not going to be all that convenient.
I'm sure it would help the problem quite a bit, but not like it did at my school. And as many said, there are bound to be problems with hackers and such. I suppose requiring Social Security numbers when votingm might help, but I'm sure there are ways around that, too.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
In free, democratic, representative societies, it is the responsibility of the governed to have oversight of those who govern them. The keyword here is responsibility. Responsible people, be they liberal or conservative, will seek such information, and base their voting decisions upon said information.
The misinformed, which would include most of the apathetic crowd, would be prone to vote online for downright asinine reasons (cute candidate, promise of government largesse, etc.) As a participant in the American constitutional republican system, I would be frightened to place such responsibility in the hands of such people. The privilege of voting should not be made easier, just for the sake of "one voter, one vote".
This is great for a democracy like the UK, but for a Republic like the US, this isn't the best idea.
;)
Although long forgotten, our Constitution is the law of the land in only one way: it restricts government from infringing on the rights of the sovereign people and the States. This means we are NOT a democracy. As the famous quote goes, a democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
E-Voting is a great idea, but it has immense limitations. Our Republic was designed to protect the minority (as small as one person) from a crazy majority. It is only because we have forgotten about the Republic that such unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, Federal Education subsidies and control, and the Welfare State have come into existance (wholly socialist schemes that truly have no place in a free culture). I capitalized them because they should really be trademarked
I like the idea of E-Voting so long as the Supreme Court actually does the job intended, to protect the rights of the people by making sure ALL laws abide by the Constitutional restraints on government. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is handled by Socialists and Fascists, not Constitutionalists, so we would be at great risk of losing the country to both the Socialist left and the Fascist right, both of which feed each other's desires by giving in to bad schemes.
I agree with your post, but how does an ATM machine help a person invest and trade easier?
BEtween making it easy for everyone to vote, and thinking if your too fucking lazy to walk 2 blocks once a year then we dont want you running the country. Or if youre too stupid to figure out the system. Can the online one include a little I.Q. test? PLease?!?! That teh Candidates have to pass too.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Before anybody applauds the idea of electronic voting, it would be wise to take a look at the following two web sites, and the links therein:
Notable Software
Black Box Voting
Then feel free to start talking about the merits of a rush to e-voting...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
If voting was made electronic how about relaxing the restrictions on candidates getting on the ballot. The would be no logistical reason to prevent anyone who wanted run from doing so. Granted, the various state laws that govern who gets on the ballot may not have been enacted for purely logistic reasons, but proposing this could force a discussion of the issue. That might actually have a theoretical chance of restoring faith the process.
Is voter apathy not voting? Even ignoring the potential increase in votes by dead people, this proposal would make it easier to vote and thus increase the percentage of people voting. I'm not sure that this is a good thing.
Many of the people who vote now do so without taking the time to understand the issues and the candidates' stands on the issues. Decreasing the barriers to voting will only increase the amount of stupid voting. I would rather have fewer voters who take more time to study the likely effects of their votes.
I encourage everyone to exhibit that kind of apathy. If you don't know what's going on, don't vote. I've done this selectively. If I am voting and have no real clue why one choice might be better than the other, I skip it and move on. Otoh, if you do want to vote, take the time to understand what's happening, look at the candidates and determine why they pick their positions.
Support democracy; vote with intelligence.
I'd be sure and put in his vote first. :)
Why is a mouse that spins?
You know what they say, if you're not apathetic, you're pathetic!
My other sig is extremely clever...
Give the people candidates who are actually worth voting for.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Why would we want someone who is apathetic making major decisions? I don't want to see a cure for the lack of voting, I want to see a cure for apathy.
my young mexican girlfriend votes, how does she fit into your equation?
dumbass liberal.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
- Those annoying people who try to get you to change your vote when you walk in to the polling location. Why do they let those people hang around?
Well I guess that's only one reason but I really hate those people.e-voting that takes place in other than an official polling place with be a magnet for abuse.
You will have a lot of representatives from the DNC visiting nursing homes to help people that don't get to the polls to vote for the "right" candidate.
Not that this doesn't happen with absentee voting already, but the abuse will increase, and the weak minded will have loads of help in casting their votes.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
With E-Voting you have to worry about another problem. Spontaneous, apathetic voters who are voting.
Have you ever been in a political discussion where you wonder how the other person can even begin to believe his or her arguments are sound? Remember what AOL joining the Internet did to newsgroups, etc?
I don't think removing the EC is the best thing, rather making it on a much smaller scale, ie County by county. I'm not positive but I would imagine that our counties now are closer to the size of the states when the EC was brought around.
Afaik the members of the EC don't do anything other than cast their presidential votes, which are _suppposed_ to be representative, so just cut out the actual people and do the voting on a county level.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Without the Electoral College, the candidates would focus exclusively on the major urban centers where all the votes are. The rural areas would receive even less consideration then they do now. As it is now, the Republicans play to the rural areas, the Democrats to the urban areas. That works because of the Electoral College. Without it, the rural areas would be ignored.
OMG FLASH = TEH SUCK!!11@! IT SI BAD AN D ALL THE KEWL PEEPS HATES IT YES MY PRESIOUS@!!! LAMERZ DONT KNOW HOW 2 UZE IT AND IT IS THE SUXOR!!!1!!!!
Christ Almighty, people, get over it.
It hurts when I pee.
When the topic of voting methods popped up in the poll, I was a bit confused. None of the stories that far had mentioned voting. Now I realize that although only subscribers can view stories in advance, anyone can get a heads-up on the future topics by carefully watching the poll. Make of this what you will.
well said.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
what is good about the uninformed and apathetic and disinterested voting to change my country to benefit them? We're not talking about fscking voting for class president at Springfield Jr. High. We're talking about people who are lazy - by nature, hence they don't vote - voting to confiscate what i work for to put into things which benefit them, and hurt me.
.... it isn't going to be until election day is the day is April 16th will things ever be fair.. and not not fscking coincidence that April is about 6.5 months away from Election day - it's intentionally that way.
I would be more enclined to understand an allow the confiscation of my money if i were eligible to partake in the fruits of my labor - but the simple fact is that i am NOT. I was unable to get college grants, i am not eligible to receive medical treatment under Medical or Medicare, I cannot get Social Security beneifts to help my sick friend (i buy her many things out of my own pocket, and would buy more if I could get back what i put into SS), or any other form of welfare that i'm aware of.
What is the fuscking stupidity of it all is that i am excluded from all of this becuase I work. Period.
And now, its a "good idea" to let the millions of non-English speaking entry-level workers to have it _that much easier_ for them to simply click-n-steal more of my money?
Remember - its not like its taxes that benefit all.. these taxes do not go to benefit me.
I just went thru the numbers. I have exactly 36.4% of my income taken from me
I do not make $100k. I live in SoCal, in a 900 sq. foot condo that has a monthly payment of well over $1500. No, not beverly Hills - La Habra, CA. (aka GuadaLaHabra).
I do not have a crappy life - but i am most certainly prevented from doing things like contributing to my local church that runs a year-round free food/rent money distribution center (they write checks to landlords for people who are having a tough time).
But see - after taxes - that all of the non-income tax payers that live in Los Angeles will now be able to vote on even easier now - i can't give more money to that quality charity... because it was all stolen from me on April 15th.
I swear to
Tax cuts for the rich?
when 5 guys go to dinner, and only 3 of them pay, and 1 pays for 36% of the meal - of course the guy paying for 36 is going to resent it.. hell, maybe, he'll just stop coming to dinner.. and leave the other 4 to foot thier own fscking bill.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Will e-voting ever allow us to implement the Borda count method?
If you get your ass up, get dressed, go down the street and stand in line so you can present ID to vote, you probably have at least some idea who you're going to vote for.
If you can do it naked, from your bed while eating Doritos, you may not have the same commitment.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
I seem to get some sort of security bulletin at least once a week. They're not all Windows vulnerabilities, either. I don't think we know how to do computer security well enough just yet to entrust our democracy to it. The voter identity systems and the tabulators must both be absolutely hack-proof.
How do we handle failures? Do I lose my right to vote if there's a cable cut somewhere between me and the Board of Elections? Do I lose my right to vote if my ISP has screwed up some routing table? Can a DoS attack deny my right to vote?
Because computers cost money, online voting makes it easier for those with enough money to have a computer to vote, and thus marginally disenfranchises those who don't.
Still, I'm all in favor of testing. Only when we've seen how this stuff works--and how it fails--will we start to understand what it's going to take to do this right. It's important to get it right.
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
The real questions are:
Should you vote if you do not have the interest to spend twenty minutes for it?
Is a vote without thought a real vote? (If you are not ready to spend twenty minutes going to the post-office whatever... have you the time to think about politics?)
What proves there is nobody with a gun behind you and your computer ? I mean, I could hire people to threaten you so you mod me up... I guess
Voting apathy is indeed a serious issue, especially here in US. Whenever I go to vote to my local station, instead of seeing a great deal of people, I'm lucky if there's another person there. I've checked out other voting stations just out of interest, and even talked to the volunteers who work those days, and they all told me the same thing - people are just not voting.
:)
This, of course, greatly empowers the people who do vote, since their votes count proportionally higher. Does this go against the "everybody gets one vote" principle? Perhaps. Worse yet, a number of people seem content treating elections - even presidential - as a game. A number of my friends voted for Nader during the last election, knowing full well that he wasn't going to get even 5% (he got something like 3%, as far as I recall), and not even necessarily supporting his program. Their justifications was that, "Well, I don't like either Bush or Gore, so I'm going to vote Green." If even a fraction of those who threw their vote away for Nader voted for Al Gore, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
Just ramblings, of course, and now I've gone completely off-topic. Ah well
"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." - G.B. Shaw
It's time to dust off the Cthulhu for president campaign. After why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for the greatest evil of all Cthulhu.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Or Ellen Feiss.
She's hot.
I'm all for online voting, but I don't think it will (nor should) cure voter apathy. It seems that everyone is concerned about these people who don't vote. I say: let them not vote! If people don't care enough to go out and vote, they most likely don't care enough to educate themselves about who or what they are voting for. And the last thing we need in this country are (more) people hitting the voting booths who don't have a clue about the issues, candidates, or party platforms beyond the sound bites they hear on the 5-o'clock news. And yes, if I don't know much about a ballot item, I don't cast a vote one way or the other -- I don't want my uneducated random choice to cancel out the vote of somebody who knows what they are doing, and I would expect the same courtesy in return.
But yes, online voting would definitely make the process more convenient for those of us who do care enough to educate themselves about what's on a particular ballot, so I'm all for it.
That kills the "I don't have time" argument.
To further get people voting, give them a tax right-off if they have a receipt proving that they voted.
Electronic voting will rig every election. I have read these things don't even have a paper trail where one would be able to verify the tainted results. Trust the election officials... mmkay...
... between "evoting" and "internet voting". Internet voting is probably not going to happen because of the high possibility of fraud and denial of service.
The first wave of evoting is supposed to be "remote pollsite voting", which COULD cure some voter apathy. Remote poll-site voting makes it so a voter isn't tied to his home polling station. He doesn't have to go to the high school in his town on election day. He could go to any polling station in the state, identify himself, and the system would pull up his ballot and he could vote and go back to work without taking a day off. A lot of voter apathy is caused by people saying "I have to commute an hour to work every day, but I have to vote at the high school in my town. I just can't miss another day at work... screw voting." Remote pollsite voting would let that guy vote on his lunch break.
The NSF and the Caltech/MIT study agree this is the way to go.
I believe it's impossible to maintain voter anonymity with this setup, and I outline that point in this Slashdot post.
Intercarve Networks, LLC
Increasing voter participation among online users will increase the proportion whose views you see in the average online polls. Conservative, right -- at least as regards economic and foreign policy viewpoints.
Voter apathy is partially a function of the way the election is run. Voting booths are only open on one day - a workday. It is difficult for many to leave their jobs and vote. The system should have a week-long period where the voting booths are open, allowing more people the opportunity to vote.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Looks like that's the consensus here. Here's a short BBC article echoing the same sentiments. The key quote, I think, is here:
"With all these other systems [airline and banking] there is a physical data trail, bits of paper that allow us to check that the transactions are accurate. "E-voting offers none of these safeguards."
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
if (chad.hanging == true) {
askAgainBeforeItsTooLate();
}
Make my vote count for something, then I'll give more of a damn. With the electoral college in place, my vote counts less than a pimple on an elephant's ass. I can vote whatever I want in Iowa and it'll always get the Democratic electral points, because the majority is Democratic. So my vote was rendered instantly useless, because it's never counted in the total.
Online voting? Good deal. I like and support the idea, I think the security concerns are real, but can be addressed. But it still won't make my vote count any more.
Blog,Twitter
It is already possible in Britain for the police or security services to find out how a person voted. Every ballot paper has a number, this is written next to your name on the register.
Ballot papers are stored in a warehouse for a length of time, it is a simple, if time consuming process to find out who voted for, say the Communist Party.
Electronic voting will just make this easier...
Also, given the government's track record on IT projects, I wouldn't want to trust the system...
I'm 22 and will still go down to the poling station (which is all of 5 minutes walk away) and vote in the traditional manner. Its simple, and works. All the bugs have been ironed out by court cases years ago.
Do we really want to make it easier to vote? Except for those with disabilities, I'd rather that somebody cared enough about the outcome of the election to go down to the polling place and vote. If you don't care enough to take 10 minutes out of your day and go to the polls, then you don't really care about the outcome of the election, do you? Someone who's too lazy to get off their butt and go vote most likely hasn't done any research or put any thought process into the issue at hand. I'd rather that only 20% of the populace voted, if they've all considered the choices in the election and their outcomes, even if they all vote against me.
the democratic candidate has been arrested for voter fraud ... the nsa has been disbanded for hacking the voting system to keep the president in office
blog |
Mark, put in envelope, put in mail. Very easy. We still have low voter turnout. Even when the issue is beyond the normal election - e.g., "vote yes to raise your income taxes, vote no to not raise them" - we still don't see much participation.
I doubt whether voting on-line would change anything. It's marginally more convenient (no need to physically put the letter in the mailbox) but...
Advice: on VPS providers
By a landslide write-in upset of 97 trillion votes. Electronic fraud is suspected in the election, results of the investigation are pending...
stuff |
Give a fine similar to running a stop sign for those who fail to vote.
These folks are trying to do this via a Californian voting proposition.
The idea of making voting easier seems counterproductive when the goal is for the best candidate verses who has the best smile or sense of humor. I could see airheads saying "I need to vote for someone... I know- I will vote for Bill Gates for president because I have heard his name before." In the United States, at one time, one needed to pass a litteracy exam and own property. I would love there to be a simple exam to pass before becoming a registered voter (something like who was the first president of the USA, how many states are in the USA and etc...). Now I know this is being done in England but I hope it never comes to the U.S.- especially if it is successful.
I miss the Karma Whores.
No state does this anymore. Most use local or state tax records (with a few exceptions that use Driver's/non-drivers license registrations). So, if you want to keep up your mis-directed apprehension towards not voting, I suggest you stop driving and earning money as well, otherwise, get out and help with the write-in campaign for CowboyNeal.
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
Support Chaos! Do it for the children!
The little dig at the end of the CmdrTaco's intro is absolutely correct. There's a pretty big link between voter apathy and the "lesser of two evils" problem. The root cause for the lesser of two evils problem is Duverger's Law, which gives us the two party system. The link between voter apathy and two-party systems is pretty unmistakable, and there's a lot of research on the subject showing it. Read the Wikipedia link above for good starting reference material.
Rob Lanphier
p.s. Visit Electorama! for more on this subject
I don't think any ONE thing will make a difference. Simply giving people the ability to vote online will help those that forget, or don't have time (I won't get into the value people place on voting). Only about 15% of my students (I teach Math at a community college) vote. Is it because they feel soft money runs government? Yes. Is it because it is inconvenient? Yes. Is it because they don't feel educated about the issues? Yes. For a system to be truly successful I believe it needs to address ALL of these issues. The soft money issue simply needs to be taken care of. The online voting should do more than allow people to vote, it should be a gateway for people to EDUCATE themselves on the issues. On a ballot you only get a paragraph or 2 describing the resolution. For positions, you only see the names and party affiliations. If the system linked to something fairly independent like http://news.google.com for articles and the house and senate for incumbent voting history online, to read up on political candidates and topics BEFORE voting, and made it that easy, I truly believe more people would do it. It isn't necessarily that people don't want to put time into it, they don't want to WASTE time on something that takes time and makes them feel out of touch with what is going on and wouldn't make a difference because of soft money anyway. Should people take the time to educate themselves? Certainly. But then we would get the same turnout we are getting now. To get a higher turnout requires lining everything up in a row for them and making it not only easy, but makes them educate themselves all at once. I think of it as an hour spent to educate AND vote, not just mindlessly vote. It could work right? Well, that's my theory anyway! ;-)
In this country, things will continue (more or less) to be business as usual, regardless of the results of any one election. No news is good news in this sense, regardless of what any reactionary or revolutionary wants you to think.
My vote has more weight the way things are now!
I live in Michigan. Thanks to our super-DMCA law, which makes it a felony to conceal the source of any electronic transmission, we cannot have E-voting machines unless we give up anonymous votes.
"What's good enough for Granddad, is good enough for me. The way it was, that's the way it's got to be."
Published votes also make bribery and vote-buying possible (and practical!) Sure, giving a guy a bottle of whiskey each time he votes for Tammany Hall or Mayor Daley cheapens the voting process, but so does promising "Read My Lips, No New Taxes" and "Pot for every Chicken" and "Contract on\\With America" and "A New Deal".
There's lots of cryptographic research into voting protocols; pick a set of 5-10 objectives and you'll find a research paper on how to make it work or why they're contradictory. Schneier's Applied Cryptography book describes some of them, and there is really good work on how to implement voting for other kinds of applications (e.g. corporate stock proxies, private organization internal elections, etc.) where there's less risk of violence or where there are different forms of cheating or gaming the system. RISKS-Digest periodically has notes from people like Rebecca Mercuri and Ed Gerck about the topic. For instance, it's important to be able to verify that your votes were actually counted, but to have it be impossible for anybody to tell how you voted, at least unless you're contesting the counting.
In general, most of the choices are Bad, Worse, or Inadequate, because it's a really hard problem.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Unfortunately, even if online voting would solve voter apathy problems, you still could not use it due to the current digital divide. I think its easy for us to forget that a significant portion of the US still does not have internet access, and the demographic with internet access is clearly weighted towards the more wealthy and more educated. Obviously you would still allow people to vote the traditional way, but by having a more convenient voting mechanism that can only be used by those with internet access, you are introducing an artificial bias into the system.
... one step backwards for democracy.
On behalf of those unable to join in our discussion, I'd like to note that due to some sections of the electorate being more likely than others to be connected to the Internet, election results would be skewed in favour of the party for the wealthy.
Interestingly, the incumbent party in the UK (Labour) is not traditionally the party for the wealthy. They are, however, well-known for their shameless bandwagon-hitching, technological naivete and lack of consultation or forethought.
And in case you're interested, I would be more likely to vote online.
Do we really want people voting who can't be bothered walking 10 minutes to vote? I mean, we already have absentee ballots for those can physically can't make it to the poles. But now we're going to leave our decision making in the hands of people who think Oprah Winfrey is a genius?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
You know...Frankly I'm shocked, and not surprised. A lot of the replies here seem to be concerned with the idea that if you make it easier for voters to do their civic duty, you get people who really don't give a damn tilting the scales one way or the other.
But that is what democracy is all about! It's not about "power to the rich" or "power to the intellectuals"...which often wind up being synonymous.
If you stand against online voting because it would "dilute the vote", then you're essentially arguing the same position that the South argued before the American Civil War, that "all people should count for tax purposes, but they don't get a vote". You can argue against it for many other reasons (lack of security, infrastructure, etc)...but *please* don't pick that one.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Spoken like a true Libertarian.
Any election system which allows a voter to prove how he voted is unconstitutional in many states. This includes publishing ballots by name, publishing ballots by issued ID, etc. I know Colorado has this provision in its constitution because it came up when a local performance artist/election system designer tried to convince the City of Boulder to try telephone voting using software to be written by student volunteers.
The reason for this restriction, as others have stated, is to prevent election fraud. If you can't prove how you voted, there's no point in buying votes or attempting to coerce voters.
The other manifestation of the same restriction is that you must vote in private. Nobody can join you in the voting booth, etc. After all, external proof of how you voted is irrelevant if some 300 lb guy with a lead pipe is in the booth with you.
Ironically, this is provided by voting in public. Since others are around, nobody can force themselves into your voting booth.
But e-voting systems fail miserably at this. If I can vote from the convenience of my home:
- a battered woman can be forced to vote "the right way" by her abusive husband. (or use "spouse" all around, since there are some battered husbands)
- an employee can be forced to vote in his boss's office.
- a church group can get together to pray and then "Witness" each other voting the right way.
and so forth. All highly illegal, but difficult to prove and expensive to buck since you're still beaten up, fired, excommunicated, whatever.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Bribe the voter. That right folks for a limited time all registered voters casting a ballot get 5% off their federal taxes.
It would get my ass to the polls. *wink*
Not to sound like an asshole, but I don't want everyone in the country voting. Especially those who are apathetic and have no motivation to begin with. For one, I honestly believe that on average those who vote are more intelligent, educated and obviously motivated about current events than those who do not. This is not to say that smart people always vote however, just that those who do are the motivated and educated ones who care about the country's goals.
Therefore, I don't want the unmotivated to be voting. I don't want people choosing a name because it sounds nice or they've seen an ad or two with that person. I especially don't want unmotivated people to vote for a person someone else dictates to.
Where is Osama bin Laden?
Where is Saddam Hussein?
Where is Dick Cheney?
Cheers,
W00t
We Love The Iraqi Information Minister Dot Com
in getting to vote directly on an issue. Sure, the parliament (or here in US the house/senate) are "educated" dedicated voters with nothing better to do than to study the issues and make informed decisions, but that usually doesn't mean jack diddly as they vote the way their funders tell them to vote.
If we could all vote directly on house and senate bills the freakin' corporations would have to buy out all of us, not merely a handful of corrupt politicians. That would never happen, so they'd resort to fud and propaganda, but hopefully the "people" would see through it. Sure the congress would be out of a job.
Who needs them anyway. I can easily log on to www.congress.org and register my votes and get on with my life. As could all the other people in the country. Talk about for the people by the people.
But unfortunately there are too many people afraid of letting all the "common folk" vote. I know there are some idiots in this country (see daytime talk shows), but there can't be that many, can there?
Then again, quite a bit of the people believe whatever the tv tells them. Of course, that also applies to the congress. So, it could be that everyone gets to vote, and nothing changes.
liberal
Liberal! LOL! I've been a registered (and voting) Conservative probably longer than you have been alive.
You, son, are the reason we conservatives get such a bad rap in the humor department.
The truth in my joke still holds, however. Any efforts to 'e'-enable voting clearly favor the connected side of the Digital Divide. Google up some stats to see who that does not include, typically. (Hint: They by-and-large did not vote for the same people we did in the last election.)
At one time or another each of us has been frustrated or disappointed by the actions of bureaucrats or our elected representative. Many people believe that one person cannot make a difference, but it already has on occasions too numerous to attempt to recount here. A group of like-minded citizens is certainly more effective, but one persistent individual will make a difference.
One excuse some people have used it that it is all too complicated. "Where do you register to vote, how much does it cost, and politicians don't listen to me anyway, so why bother" are all statements people have made to me, and they are all untrue. While the political process can be involved, participation in the process is easy and very rewarding.
In Alaska, each area is represented by two state legislators, as well as assembly representatives to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. All of Alaska has three representatives to Congress, Representative Don Young, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator Lisa Murkowski. Barely 40% of the voters (which is not everybody eligible to vote; many who are eligible simply don't register) elected your representatives. If you're not involved in the political process, then you'll be subjected to the will of the active minority who are. If you are unhappy with the way things are, then blame it on the majority who don't even bother to vote.
Getting your message across to your representative is easy. Failure to let your representatives know what is happening, and actions you'd like to see in response, will result in things staying the same. If you're going to complain, you might as well be complaining to the people who can do something about it, and who actually care.
The first step in effective communication with your representatives is to outline your thoughts, and organize your letter. You can start out with a long list, but you'll have to reduce it to one topic per letter, and the entire letter should not be more than two pages. The first paragraph will state your position, concisely, politely, and identify the nature of the situation. The rest of the letter will provide support for your position. Stick with the facts, and avoid straying into philosophical arguments, instead pointing out the potential negative impact the actions could have. Use your own words; quoting information from other sources will help to support your position, but keep it to a minimum. Suggest a better alternative if you have one. And keep the overall tone respectful, never threatening. Offer to meet with them to discuss the matter in more detail, and offer to help them find a solution.
In concluding your letter, ask for a response. Your name and address should be on the letter, and legible. Be ready to follow up with a response, and if you don't hear back from your representative within a reasonable time, or if the answer is insufficient, don't hesitate to write again.
Give copies of your letters to like-minded friends and encourage them to use it as a base or guide to write their own letter. You can also use your letter to base letters to the editors of your newspapers and other public forums.
Your letter will also serve to keep you on track when communicating with your representatives in other ways. For example the Legislative Information Offices are available in every part of Alaska. These offices, maintained by the state, serve to facilitate the participation of the public in the political process, and provide information on the activities of the legislature. The LIO for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is located at 600 East Railroad Ave., Wasilla, Alaska 99654. Their phone number is 376-3704, and their fax number is 376-6180. If you would prefer to email them, their address is Matsu_LIO@legis.state.ak.us
Email addresses of each state legislator is the same as their name. For example, Senator_Lyda_Green@legis.state.ak.us or Representative_Beverly_Masek@legis.state.ak.us. Find them online
As an out-of-state college student, it requires significantly more effort to vote than if I was close to home. While E-voting won't cure voter apathy, it'll certainly help.
Yes, I am a lazy bum and don't feel like filling out an absentee ballot. I've got other issues to deal with. (Engineering at VT anyone?)
I often discuss political affairs with my friends and family, read the news, read the commentary, and mock the communists.
This just proves that just because you're lazy doesn't mean you're uninformed.
Republic - A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
Or, if you prefer -- A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
Democracy - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
While democracy can also mean simply "majority rule", this is not the only or even primary meaning of the word.
In fact, we live in a democratic republic. Hope I've helped.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
A guy who can't control his fork is telling me what's wrong with the world?
Puh-LEEEEZE!
erm. 60% in taxes, eh? just pulling that number out of your butt?
and as far as why we pay taxes to the government:
who builds and maintains the roads? who pays for the police, the FBI, the border patrol? who makes sure your drinking water is safe? etc...
the government has a role to play. in order to perform its function we need to chip in our share.
Ah, libertarians. The social darwinists of our time.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Some hackers figure out how to create a Perl script to flood the ballot box, and CowboyNeal is the next President.
CmdrTaco's hit at the end is spot-on: the problem with apathetic voters isn't the difficulty or ease of getting to polling places, but the utter lack of choice in elections. As has been said, many times, many ways, each officeholding choice is a selection between (almost always) two people who are either virtually identical in position, with only very minor distinguishing features, or two people who are, at the best, dishonest opportunists who siezed a chance to run for office because it's better than having a real job.
Much more fundamental things have to change before we relieve voter apathy.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
I voted for the first time 4 years ago at the age of 24. It was something I though I should do.
I received my polling card through the post about 10 days ago. This is nothing new. It looks like a large payslip with perforations down three sides. Inside is my two part ballot code and instructions on how to vote.
I have 5 choices:
1. Via the internet at http://www.swindonelection.net/. This is going to be the easiest way of voting for me.
2. By telephone. Free number too.
3. Through my set-top cable tv box
4. i-kiosks, of which there are 8 in the town center.
5. At the local community center where I voted last time. The weather was very nice that evening.
Our local council has really made an effort with this election. Maybe that explains where the 15% tax increase is going...
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
I truly wish that every one would research the
issues and vote. I realize this isn't going to happen and that being true, I
only want those who learn the issues and vote there conscious weather or not it
is in line with mine to vote so I don't think we should make it to easy to
vote and computerized voting is defiantly making it to easy. I don't even like
motor voter registration like they have in my state. If you are not willing to
go to town hall to register to vote then you certainly aren't going to make
informed decisions about the candidates and issues.
Most of the comments here seem to be along the lines of "Oh, great! Let's put the future of the country more in the hands of the unemployed apathetic slackers ...".
Maybe it wouldn't turn out that way, though.
Here in the states, the last few times I've seen some big-wig try to push e-voting, the equal-opportunity folks get their undies all bunched up over it, claiming that it discriminates against the lower-class (who don't own as many PC's as the rich people do).
So, you need to kinda ask yourself what there is more of:
A: Apathetic slackers who are too apathetic to go down to their traditional polling place, yet still motivated enough to own a PC or to trek over to visit a friend who does (or to an internet cafe), or...
B: Busy professionals who have plenty of access to PC's, but who are arguably too busy to swing by their polling place.
Personally, I fall into the second category.
Lastly, when I think about it, I'd have to venture that someone who has a PC has got to be, at least marginally, more informed than someone who doesn't. I mean... what kind of hole do you have to be living in to not have (or have access to) a PC?
So, something like this isn't necessarily the end of the world. We'll have to see.
"But that is what democracy is all about!"
That's why we live in a republic.
Unless you didn't realize, our system is geared towards having educated people vote.
I don't see that as a bad thing at all, frankly.
I can't believe the responses coming from these slashdotters! I have been a STRONG advocate for online voting for years and see it as the ONLY way to save our unbalanced voting system.
In college, we successfully used an online voting system where the GREAT majority of votes were taken online. Not only had the percentage of votes been much higher than in years without online voting, but there was plenty of supplemental material to educate yourself on the votes beforehand.
It seems like many of you are worried about stupid people making stupid votes - I disagree. I still think that the lazy voter who doesn't care won't even bother to do an online vote. I think that many people who either can't make it, are too busy, or just intimidated by the process of our current voting scheme are perfect candidates.
So few in the US vote, it's rather sickening. I'm inclined to believe that if the percentage of eligible voters raised to even 60%, we would most likely never see a conservative in office again.
You don't *want* to "cure" voter apathy. Do you *honestly* want people who are too stupid or too *lazy* to get out of the easy chair and drive the 4 blocks to the voting booth to be making important decisions for *you*?
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
I always liked Wavy Gravy's "Nobody for President!" campaign.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If you're too lazy to go vote in person you're most likely too lazy to keep informed and shouldn't be voting anyway.
yes, while Duverger's Law does account for the two major party system in SMPDs, it is not because of voter apathy. If there are three parties in a newly formed democracy, lets call them A, B and C, originally enough. A is slightly left of center, B is centrist and C is slightly right of center Suppose A gets 45% of the vote, B gets 40%, and C gets 35%. A wins right? Ok so next election cycle comes around. Assuming that nothing major has happened in the country, like all conservatives being rounded up and drowned (i.e. the population's preferences for canidates are not very much different than before). because B and C are similarly aligned, they will combine and form a new party (lets call it D) which will crush A given that those who allied with B AND C would then vote for D. So D wins.
As is said on your link, which doesn't really explain what this effect is. Duverger's law leads to situations like we saw with Nader and Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. Without Nader, those that voted for him probably would have voted for Gore, if those two groups (green and Democrats) would have joined together, then Gore would have won Flordia with out question, and things would be slightly different than they are now. The same thing happened in 1992 with Bush 1 and Perot.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
It would just make voting so easy that the apathetic would vote anyway, without knowing or caring what they were doing.
It would also totally destroy transparency.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If people find it is too hard to drive to a polling station and vote, their vote is useless. I'd rather have people have to drive, than just click. Perhaps they'd put effort in deciding who to vote for than. 2cent
Could E-voting cure voter apathy?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] Abstain.
"look, election commissioner, it seems our voter turnout was 200%"
... get this, there are no polling stations that's right folks, we do it all by mail here. tends to get people off their asses. although, i do have a friend who goes around asking people who won't vote if he can have their voter packet, and has them sign the submission envelope... well, no system is perfect.
of last years?
"no, of our eligible voting populace"
seriously, i live in Oregon, one of the U.S. states with the highest voter turnout because
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
> cure voter apathy
Ah yes. Voter apathy. So everyone who doesn't vote is apathetic? I could be wrong but IMHO voter apathy is nothing but an attempt of the elected to claim a mandate to govern when the clear majority didn't vote for them (or for anybody).
My personal solution for curing so called voter apathy would be threefold.
1. Make voting COMPULSORY as it is in Australia.
2. Make polling day a public holiday.
3. Include a NO VOTE option at the bottom for those who truly don't want to vote.
Then perhaps we'll see just how much confidence the electorate has in the arseholes in power.
Anyway, I've got my ballot paper sitting infont of me. I can vote for any of 5 people. None of which I want to vote for. So what do I do?
Suggestions welcome.
At the moment I'm considering scrawling "NO VOTE" in the area they've marked "LEAVE BLANK"
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
The *only* sort of "eVoting" that I would want adopted is one where you can use a Website/application to prepare and submit your vote, but you still have to show up in person (or follow some sort of separate mail-in process) to make your vote count. You could submit your vote any number of times you like, and select the one you settled on at the polling station.
Why do I require the second step?
1. To prevent security flaws from allowing mass vote fraud. If you get to the polling station and your ballot has been cracked, ignore and re-do it.
2. To prevent violation of secrecy. If someone or some group pressures/forces you to submit a ballot while they watch, you can submit your true ballot at another time, or at the polling station.
Why bother with eVoting at all then?
To allow you the convenience and assistance in composing your ballot that a well-designed Web site or downloadable application could provide, such as links to candidate-provided information and more complex and expressive options such as Condorcet or Approval voting.
Frankly, to make into plain sarcasm I see right now a minority [the richt, the corporations] having a field day over the mass [normal citizen]. And what you say about EC forcing people to take into account minority *isn't right*. If it was from day 0 slave would have been freed and racism & racistic law would not have gone well beyond the 1950's. I bet that by looking a bit more you can find a lot more example. And look at EU country where many use direct democracy. Is there less freedom ? Are the minority oppressed ? It doesn't seems so at first view.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
yes but as all polls are they are voluntary and will only be filled out by those compelled to do so. I'd imagine that more people with computers are conservative (because not all people have them) and that would be one reason to see conservative tendancy in online polls. There's nothing to suggest that those people on the online polls are not already voting normally and given that they are compelled to vote in online polls you can't say that the majority of people that would take advatange of e-voting would be conservative. (say yay for research methods and statistics)
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
If we continue to have election fraud like in the U.S. Presidential Race of 2000 where Bush won, doesn't this just help the Republicans stay in office?
Oh wait.. they don't even know what the Internet is.
I can imagine a web based system much like /. polls:
Who do you think should be the next President of the US?
O - George W. Bush
O - Al Gore
O - Pat Buchanon
O - Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf
O - Who's the President you speak of?
If people were allowed to vote online, anywhere, people would do some crazy things. And vote for very little reason ( websites facing prosecution could elect someone through web campaigns) So little do people care about already (who don't vote) that it's hard to understand why they don't.
The time spent going to a voting station, waiting in line, voting and returning from a voting station is quite a bit less than the time spent informing one's self about the candidates or the issues. If people aren't willing to make the effort to vote at a voting station, they surely aren't willing to make the effort to inform themselves. The time spent is a small price to pay for the privelege of voting.
I don't know when voting became a "right." It's a franchise, which is different. Certain things shouldn't prevent one from being enfranchised, but voting should never be considered a right.
While Robert A. Heinlein was a bit extreme in "Starship Troopers," the idea of requiring some kind of service which demands more than you are paid in order to be enfranchised is a good idea. Two to four years in government service, not only military (including Coast Guard), but Peace Corps, or maybe fire fighting, police duty, welfare services, even teaching assistants in poor school districts might work. Perhaps the length of service would proportional to risk and amount of training required.
Wow, classic, go ahead and make this a "white" against "non-white" issue. Brilliant. Is it your belief thta non-white people cannot be wealthy or do not possess Internet access?
Many intelligent and informed people don't vote because they don't have time. They have responsibly to their families and employers. Making it easier to vote will create more informed voters. I agree that people should take the time to get informed before they vote, but cannot be a requirement.
Did everyone fail their statistics class? Did nobody do any analyses of sample sets? Do you remember that above a certain sample size (or percent of population) the results are about 99.99999999999% confident? 25% is a huge chunk of the population. IOW, election results wouldn't really vary much whether there was 20% turnout or 100% turnout. (Of course, there are odd cases like the Florida 2000 election situation, but those are rather rare.)
Why should people who don't know/care be allowed to vote, let alone encouraged to vote? These are the same people who 'chose' Windows as the dominant operating system. They didn't know, so they just went along with what a friend/boss/salesdrone told them. The same thing will happen with voting.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
And the new Prime Minister of Britian is...
Cowboy Neal!
Kodos: Its true. We are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? Its a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
First man: Hes right; this is a two-party system.
Second man: Well, I believe Ill vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead. Throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Pro: Allowing citizens to vote online will probably just weight the results more toward the geeks who otherwise wouldn't vote at all. Strengthening the geek lobby can only have positive consequences, like maybe, one day, fiber to the curb for the average geek.
Con: Put it online, and someone will hack it. No system is immune, and something as important and public as the "voting server" would be quite the honeypot.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Next to all that, the physical challenges involved in voting -- waiting in line, signing your name, making the ballot -- seem less important.
(And maybe I'm just a ridiculously patriotic fool, but talking to the old ladies at the polling place, standing in line, and marking a physical ballot are all part of the social compact of the thing for me. I love that stuff. Clicking through a series of security certificate reminders or whatever just wouldn't be the same.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
o.k now we have at least 2 posts talking in one way or the other about MaryJane. I thought that pot was not legal if this is true why in the world are we giving pot to chickens?? "Pot for every Chicken" Do the chickens smoke by the joint or do they use a bong.. Hmmm can you use a bong if you have a beak?? And what about the other animals can they smoke pot too??
I spent more time waiting in a line for the opening day of the Fellowship, than I have spent in line in the last three elections combined. I'm usually done, line waiting and voting, in 30 minutes. I waited in line for three hours for the Fellowship so I could get a good seat - I'm sure a lot of people here did that.
It really is not that much of a burden to vote but I must say, I'm glad that those who are uniterested in going to the polls don't go - on average, they probably aren't that up on the issues either. Note I said "on average" - certainly there are a few who feel all the candidates suck, but my guess is that the number of those people pales in comparrison to the numbers of people who just can't be bothered at all. No evidence to support this though - just a guess.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Imagine all the millions and millions of dead people who would vote if they could do so electronically!
Instant Runoff Voting - so that people can vote for their favorite candidate instead of having to vote for the lesser of two major-party evils to avoid letting the greater evil win
Public Campaign Financing - so that candidates who aren't rich or beholden to special interests can run competitive campaigns
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The American democracy???
1. The article is talking about England.
2. America isn't a country - it's two continents (the US before the A in USA is how you show you're talkinb about a country instead of a region of the world).
3. the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic (so minorities have rights and aren't just mowed over by the majority).
Geesh!
After I put all that aside...
"...finally get a Libertarian president"
Are you sure that's would represent a problem?
Voter apathy won't be the issue. The security of the vote will be. Even in the current quasi-evoting period, there are pages and pages of cases where votes were mysteriously lost, counted wrong, counted for the OTHER people vs. you, etc etc. I really wish Slashdot would deal with the bigger issues that are so obvious you have to be blind to not notice or think of them. Is everyone forgetting the last presidential election? I think so, now imagine a similar event happening for every public office. Now know that it's a real problem that's been happening for the past 10 years AT LEAST.
Is this the thing that I was given a letter about last month? It told me I had to make a phone call, and send a confirmation letter back. The polling station is behind my house, the postbox is much further away...
It's pointless to provide an Internet service when you have to use other mediums to gain access to it.
Everytime I think about the two choices we have in the states (and don't kid yourself about those non-demopublican, non-republicrat parties who unforunately don't stand a meatball's chance on Ann Nicole's plate), it reminds me of the election episode of Futurama with Jack Johnson and John Jackson.
This is precisely one of the problems with online voting. If you're not willing to exert the effort to go to a polling place, you shouldn't be voting anyway.
Another problem with online voting is the digital divide. A new study found that 42% of Americans aren't online. That's doesn't necessarily correspond to 42% of registered voters, but a number that large shows that online voting won't benefit a significant number of people.
Probably the single best way to improve voter participation is to move elections to Sunday. Almost everyone in the country either has Sunday off or they don't have to work normal polling hours on Sunday (7 AM to 7 PM). Many countries around the world have elections on Sundays, I can't believe we still use Tuesdays.
If you are too lazy to vote, chances are you are definitely too lazy to get deep into the issues you are voting for.
:( duh...)
I'd go as far as to say we shouldn't let everyone vote, but only those who feel sufficiently strong about the issue being voted upon. Unfortunately, there is no good way to measure how strongly you feel, so you can't implement such restriction, but it would be nice (however utopian) to have this work.
I have noticed something really cool in the opensoruce development. In short you can summarize it as "Jumping through hoops helps". It goes like that:
If you want to affect any sufficiently mature open-source project, you have to jump through hoops. However inefficient that may be, it shows your interest. First, you have to post something useful to the mailing lists to get past moderators. If you have a patch, it has to be valuable AND follow THEIR coding style, not your own. The burder of getting YOUR change into the project is on YOU, and is YOUR responsibility. It is also YOUR problem if you didn't RTFM and asked stupid questions till people stopped answering you.
My point is that if you feel strongly about something, you will just through soome hoops to make yourself heard. You have the capability to change whatever it is you are trying to change, but you have to show some knowledge about the subject and respect to other people first. And will learn something valuable in the process.
Also, when I say 'I worked on such and such, and some of my code is running in your kernel (or app, or whatever) right now', I can be proud of that, because there is work and appreciation involved. Do I feel proud when I say 'I voted for Bush'? No. Why? Because it was so easy, and because 10 other people just checked the box at random. I wish I could be proud of that. But you've got to raise the bar first! (like that's ever going to happen...
Jobs? Which jobs?
Eh...who cares.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
If you vote from home, then there's no exit polling. How is Peter Jennings going to tell California, Alaska, and Hawaii how to vote if he doesn't have the numbers from Maine, Florida, and New York in time??
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
Convenience is king. I assign my vote to my mom/friend/favroite author/etc. That person's vote is now augmented with mine. My vote can be assigned/reassigned/switched to *anyone* (not just officially-designated representatives) (or no-one if I want to do my own voting) at a moment's notice via online interface. Naturally you'd pick someone who keeps up on current issues, has the time on his/her hands to vote regularly and that you agree with. Maybe your retired grandma.
So lets do it this way. It's be convenient as hell!
Just curious, if you had the following case:
51% rabidly support candidate A, 49% rabidly oppose
but -
80% perfectly okay with candidate C as a compromise (for instance with a lot of second-place rankings and some first one)
who do you think should win?
This is really the crux of the question of most voting systems... consensus versus competition.
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Internet voting will not "cure voter apathy" but it will increase turnout mearly because it will allow people who don't have the time, motivation and/or ability to go to a polling place and wait in line to vote. Whether or not this is a good thing, however, is another issue altogether
Just what we need in a country where people are too
lazy to go somewhere to vote and too
idiotic to follow an arrow and punch a hole.
If one does not take a little time out of a busy schedule to vote then obviously they didn't care enough anyway. The bussiest people I know have always found time to vote but it is funny that the people who are not so busy find it the hardest to find time to vote (at least in my experience). Voting stations are open all day long and you can MAIL in your ballot if you are away or whatever.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Voter Apathy is not evil. Citizens have the right not to vote if none of the candidates feel like the right choice. Doing so is their way of stating it.
The Doctor Who episode Vengeance on Varos had it right -- have the elected official present his case, everyone votes yea or nay, and if the official loses, he gets tortured right there.
How to cure voter apathy, I present two alternatives:
Imagine all the Spam this would generate. All the politicians would jump into your mailbox with messages like vote for me and get 3 extra inches overnight.
... And that's territorial inches you pervert.
I find it amazing and disappointing how many people are posting excuses why they don't vote. For most of their imagined problems, actually going out and voting would do a small part in fixing those problems. By voting, you, in a small way, are making your mark on the statistics of the election. Even if there is only one vote--your vote--for legalizing dog-weddings (for example), the fact that someone wants them is know known to the public. The effect is subtle but real.
Another good example: a recent school bond referendum fell through by a measily 200 or so votes in a county of thousands of registered voters. If only 200 more people had formed an opinion about the referendum and actually voted, the outcome could have been completely different. Remember, the outcomes of elections are decided by the majority of voters, not citizens.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
I know, you're going to say the technology works, etc. It *isn't* a technology problem. Think of a boss who tells his people they should vote from work, and looks over their shoulders. The people know who the boss supports. Don't want to vote at work? Maybe the boss finds excuses to fire folks who won't.
One of the advantages of going to a polling place and only to polling places is that it completely removes any chance for anyone to intimidate you, since you can say "Sure I voted for X" and there is no way for anyone to know any different.
Too many people are too technical and only think of the technology issues with e voting. The fraud and intimidation possibilities go up tremendously when we have e voting, not because of technology (although bet there will be issues) but because of old fashioned strong arm and intimidation tactics. Give someone the new ability to watch over your shoulder while you vote and dishonest people will use this to rig things. People can sell votes because there is a way to verify that they voted as you wanted. Etc.
E voting is a bad idea. Yeah, there are technology reasons. But the real problems are sociological.
What about the sizeable percentage of the popultion who, because of the terrible isolationist nuclear-family thing, grow into adults who are completely unable to function in society?
They can always go to jail of course -- just hope that the crime that puts them there isn't commited against you. Or your family.
----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Right now, most voting systems only allow you to say "yes".
:) ).
From anecdotal evidence there seems to be a significant number of eligible voters who can't bring themselves to say "yes" to any candidate. They don't feel like taking the trouble to go to a voting booth to say "yes" to the least disliked candidate, or going there and making a spoilt vote as a sign of their displeasure.
I suggest that if voters could place a negative vote there would be less apathy.
For example a "No" vote would subtract the total vote tally = -1 . "Don't care" = 0. "Yes" = +1. A net-unpopular candidate will have a negative score. If all candidates are in the negative, then maybe the least negative scored candidate should still win, but have a much shorter term (and not be able to credibly brag about having support of the majority
Would you feel like voting then?
You also get better information. A controversial candidate will have lots of Yes and No votes. You'd be able to have a clearer view of voter disatisfaction.
But I'm sure politicians don't want this sort of thing, and so this is unlikely to happen.
Oh well.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166 .htm
Thank you for talking about BNTOA (Binding None Of The Above), a pet subject of mine.
....) that is MY choice.
You need to do one other thing, as well, IMHO: You need to recognize that the "primaries" are nothing of the sort - they are a wart on the side of the electoral process, completely outside the scope of the laws defining the system. They are purely a function of the political parties.
The best thing in the world would be to de-emphasise them, by:
1) not allowing the parties access to the voter rolls as maintained by the State - all they should be able to ask you is "Are you eligable to vote in this district?" not "What party are you registered with?"
2) not allowing the parties to use State property to conduct the primaries - let them find their own damn location to hold the polling and use their own damn equipment to tally the votes. This helps remind people of the unofficial status of the primaries, as well as (hopefully) forcing the two main parties to be at seperate locations, in order to facilitate point #3, which is:
3) If a party wishes to restrict access to its primary voting to party members, that's fine (after all, it IS a private function). However, do NOT allow the parties to prevent me from joining, just because I also joined the other party. If I wish to be BOTH a Rep and a Dem (and a Green and a Lib and a
In the state where I live (Kansas), you are EITHER a Republican OR a Democrat OR an independant, but not more than one of the above. Thus, I cannot vote in both the Rep and Dem primaries - pick one and only one.
With my changes, I could be both a Rep and a Dem, and vote in both primaries, thus preventing the "pick the lesser of two evils" crap when the REAL election comes around - I would at least have a chance to get each party to field a reasonable candidate.
THEN, if the parties refuse to play ball, you can NOTA their sorry selves out of the running.
Thus, the parties won't run lame ass candidates (Like Bush AND Gore) because the matrix looks like this:
Both parties run poor candidates: NOTA wins, both parties have to run a second campain.
Party A runs a poor candidate, party B runs a good candidate - party B wins.
Both parties run good candidates - we ALL win!
Also, in a NOTA system the third parties are given more power - in the first election they can focus on tearing down the Rep/Dem candidtates, and NOT run their own guy.
NOTA wins.
Then the third parties blitz to adverties their guys, being on more even footing with the big boys.
www.eFax.com are spammers
And I'm not talking about geeks here :)
The main problems with e-voting are twofold, equally serious.
Problem one is a question of motivation and knowledge. Now, the people who vote more often than not have a general knowledge of the political spectrum: they know what they're voting for. They have an idea of the repercussions and don't buy into the hype of electiontime lies.
Once e-voting comes into effect, we'll have the millions of dumb people voting. The populist will win every time, not the one who has unpopular, but correct ideas and ideals. Having high voter turnout is not neccessarily a good thing.
But the second problem is a slightly nastyer one. As it stands you have to physically vote (ie you actually do care about what happens), which means you also have guaranteed privacy...you stand, by yourself in a voting booth where no-one sees what you vote. E-voting means that you can be coerced into voting for someone you might not want to. Dad (or mum) can decide his/her kids/wife/hubby have to vote for his choice. Or roving bands of thugs could come by (yeah, unlikely, but it is possible, and therefore must be avoided) and tell you to vote for mr x.
And that's discounting the fact that e-voting systems (especially closed ones) can be hacked or have backdoors put in.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The reason voter turn out is low isn't caused only by "The lesser of two evils" It is because the ultra majority of people don't care as long as the status quo is preserved. As long as they can go to work, buy their car, watch CSI and take a nap, No one really cares.
As for the lesser of two evils... We have system that lends itself to two partys fighting for the top; However, they system also allows for other canidates to arise. If you don't like the two evils on the ballot WRITE IN YOUR OWN FRICKEN CANIDATE there is nothing stopping you.
While unrelated, people in the USA need to stop and realize they live in democratic federal republic. Once they realize how our representitvles get elected, how the federal system is supposed to work, and why their state governments should have more control, I think everthing else will fall into place.
It's true, I don't spell check
I have never voted, and never intend to. Doing so would be tacitly endorsing a system that I think is broken and can't be fixed.
I don't think that my one vote will ever make a significant difference in any electoral process. "But what about Florida?" some will say. What about it? Had Al Gore become the president the world would indeed be different, there probably wouldn't have been a war in Iraq for one thing. But fundamentally nothing would have changed. There would still be special interest groups with far too much influence. There would still be millions spent on campaigns instead of on something tangible. Elections have some minor effect on the policy of a country, but not on the fundamental structure of the system.
Electronic voting instead of punch-card voting makes about the same difference as renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries does to your heart. Eat either one and your arteries are going to get clogged.
One of the many problems with elections is that all the candidates are politicians. They all accept the framework they're working in. While some talk a bit about changing the system in insignificant ways, the ones who have a good chance of winning don't want to change the system -- it might prevent them from winning.
Think about this: who is most likely to win an election: someone who is really good at campaigning (kissing babies and shaking hands) but doesn't know or care how to govern, or someone who is really good at governing but lacks charisma? The whole democratic system is set up to select good campaigners, but the job that they're being chosen for doesn't have much to do with those skills.
My impression is that voter apathy isn't because punch cards are too hard. It's not because people don't care. It's not because they don't have time. It's that a lot of people have come to accept that elections are the new opiate of the masses. Those with real power have convinced the masses that they can make a difference by checking a box every 4 years. So rather than march in the streets or take up arms, the masses march to the polling station and dutifully check a box, thinking they are making a difference. The apathetic voters are the ones who have discovered that voting doesn't change much, but don't know what else to do.
When you vote, you should submit your vote along with a reason why you voted for that person (without using the name). Voters who consistently vote for candidates for dumb reasons will not be allowed to vote for a while.
Examples:
"I voted for candidate X because I like the way he makes me feel"
Was voted: Unfair
"I voted for candidate X because I think candidate Y is an idiot."
Was voted: Unfair
There are some wonderful things you can do with computerized voting, but if all I get to do is cast the same vote for the same tired parties then I may more easily overcome laziness, but I won't affect the outcome.
If I expect that I won't affect the outcome, I become apathetic, and don't bother to vote.
I could vote for a real candidate, more interesting than the two parties, but they won't get elected because only the two parties get elected and anything else is throwing my vote away. Why bother?
Solution: Change the voting system to one that is fair for any number of candidates instead of the current one that reinforces duopoly.
Acceptance Voting or Rated Voting should be implemented as soon as possible at all levels.
See the URL in my sig
http://bolson.org/voting/
(yes, this is my little holy cause)
Start Running Better Polls
So that either means candidates must stay 150 feet away from all computers during an election...
Or do they have to stay "5 links away from the election site"?
*stands on soapbox*
People, making the process of voting physically easier is not the solution to curing voter apathy. Politically apathetic citizens became that way because of one of two reasons:
1. they are genuinely not interested in politics, or they feel it does not affect them in any way
2. they feel there is no candidate worth voting for
In reality, these two reasons are caused by the same thing -- ignorance. Politics DOES affect you, and there ARE candidates worth voting for. Online voting may make the process easier, but it does nothing to cure the problems infecting the system itself.
Here is a quick checklist to see if you, or someone you know, is, in fact, Part of the Problem!!
1. If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are part of the problem. You should find a candidate that you actually like, because they are out there (though, admittedly, they may not have a cute icon like an elephant or a donkey). At the very least, you should familiarize yourself with the Green Party and the Libertarian Party.
2. If you vote on a single, smoke-and-mirrors issue, you are part of the problem. E.g. soccer moms who vote Republican because they are "pro life" when Republicans have little interest in outlawing abortion. Its ok to feel strongly about a particular issue, but at least look into whether or not the people you are voting for will actually do something about it. More often than not, hot-button issues like abortion are simply split between the two major parties - Democrats are "pro choice" and Republicans are "pro life" - but abortion remains legal regardless of which is in office. Voting along these arbitrary, marketing-driven lines accomplishes nothing. Do not allow your vote to be "assumed" by a major party because you feel a certain way about an issue - make them show you something.
3. If you do not vote at all because you think there is no one worth voting for, then you are part of the problem. There are many different voices out there, and one is sure to align fairly closely with your own. Whenever possible, one should always vote for third parties because, if for no other reason, you can consider it a vote for more choices and an end to the lock of the two-party system (the first hurdle).
4. And lastly - register yourself as an independant! There is no reason for you to allow yourself to be assumed. They have to earn your vote - every time. The fact that people check themselves off as subscribing to a particular laundry list of stances on issues never ceases to amaze and disgust me. Why allow yourself to become part of some political marketing poll? The fact that certain candidates do not visit certain areas of the country because they have it "in the bag" should disgust you, too.
*steps down from soapbox*
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
Thank's! I'll take the dog food. There are a choice of flavours and its more nourishing than you think.
A major concern about polititians is that they have short term aims, whereas most problems require long term strategies.
There are no guarantees. Caveat Emptor.
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Another option - use the Doctor Who Vengeance on Varos method...three strikes and you're OH so out.
Kind of gives a new meaning to the term "survive a vote of no-confidence", doesn't it?
Seriously, though...that's basically what some other countries do (save the actual death of the polititian...pity, that, really, but...). Screw up enough, and you basically find yourself running against the person that people thought that they actually voted for in the first place (you, the politician). If you don't measure up, a new election is called.
Note that, even after a vote of no confidence, nothing says that you can't be re-elected. But it certainly would tend to shake a person up, I'd think.
The chief complaint that I've heard re: these models is that either would tend to bog the government down to a point where elected officials tend to move slowly, be very cautious, and don't accomplish very much. I would argue that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
An e-voter system would be truely useless, and here is why:
There are two types of people who don't vote:
1. People who do not know anything about the issues/candidates along with people who don't care
2. People who disapprove of the candidates who are running.
You really don't want the first type of person voting because an uninformed voter is either going to vote straight down party lines, or even worse, just pick random people to vote for. The second type of person still won't vote because they have some fundamental problem with the candidates who are running and therefor have made the decision not to vote.
It isn't that hard to take a quick trip to your local townhall/voting area. Putting a ballot online will just create an election filled with people who know nothing about the issues and are just clicking buttons.
I read about politics all the time. Go to my web site, and you'll find articles I've written about politics. I might want to find a political job in DC one of these days.
But...
I do hate having to go to vote. I did vote in the last one...but I could see myself skipping future ones. After all, my one vote doesn't make a difference among the tens of thousands (or millions, depending on the election) of votes. But it's like 45 minutes from the day I don't feel like spending. Make it 20 seconds from day, in front of a PC, that's no problem.
For years I thought We'd be better off with smaller Government, but I really think the cure for our ills is a LARGER House of Reps! Right now, we have a bit over 622k people per Rep (271M /435) - Let's face it, your rep probably has never heard of you, and if you can afford $100, it's a drop in the bucket
Now, the number of Reps has not changes since 1913, when they filled the room in the Capitol - No you really want to run a country based upon the size of a room?
In 1776 the ratio was 1 Rep per 30k people - that means we would have 9033 Reps! I think this is a GOOD idea - It would be VERY hard for a company to BUY 4517 Reps, but your $100 bucks would start to be REAL money.
In 2002, the House and Senate raised $604 Million in Campaign contributions, or $1.29 Million Per candidate (435 Reps, 33 Senate (Senate count an estimate - 1/3))
Now, let's say we have 9033 Reps and 33 Senators up for election -for a total of 9066. Now if they only get the same amount of contributions, they average 66k each, so lets say they get more - $100k. Your $100 bucks speaks a LOT louder, and it starts to become possible for an individual to run their own campaign, particulary when you realize the big money goes to the 33 Senators - in fact, the average Incumbent Rep spent 500K and the Challenger about 100k - if you figure 1/20th, we talking 25K for an incumbent, and 5K for a challenger. That $100 starts to look like REAL cash
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Usually apathetic means uninformed (not always).
I could do without the "I don't know what it does
so vote no group".
Well, if you vote for someone whose platform you don't support to make a point, sure, you're playing a game.
But: voting for an unlikely-to-win candidate whose platform you do support is not playing a game. Voting for Gore because you want Nader but don't want "to throw your vote away" is playing a game.
Meta-voting is a game, and probably not a great one. Surely any vote for a non-winning candidate is "thrown away" in that it doesn't affect the outcome. Does that mean everyone should try to figure out who the winner will be and then vote for that candidate?
The best voting strategy should be to vote for the candidate you want. Even if your candidate loses, it lets the winning side know that there is support for that candidate's platform.
Unfortunately in the US we have this plurality-based voting system where the best strategy probably is to vote for Gore if you want Nader, to avoid Bush. Maybe if we had a runoff or instant-runoff system, then fewer people would be tempted to "play games" with their vote.
Um, wow... looks like I can ramble too. Oops!
--Saltine
We have, in the United States, an interesting twist on democracy. Here, voters are not required to vote. Everyone (with a few exceptions) can vote if they desire, but there are no real incentives to get people to the polls. Because of this, there is a constant outcry about how much better the system would work if only everyone would vote.
Personally, I think this is Male Bovine Fecal Material, at its worst.
What we have is a plurocracy. Those who vote do so because they want to, and my contention is that voters who want to vote are, as a group, better informed than the overall population of eligible voters. Those voters who plan on voting are certainly more motivated to serve a political purpose; said voters are likely to be better enlightened about the issues being voted upon.
I believe that our system works as well as it does because most voters stay home, not despite the lack of response at the polls.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
What you are talking about is getting real close to a "pure democracy." Sorry, but I think the US Founding Fathers were spot on when they said democracy was a terrible idea. Democracy is 51 people voting to piss in the corn flakes of th4 49 and expecting the 49 to say "OK, it was a fair vote, piss away" instead of grabbing their sporting goods.
That is why our government is a Republic constrained by a Constituition. Of course there isn't much left of the limits built into the original system, but inflicting further damage won't get applause from me.
Democrat delenda est
And members will be treated to Kool-Aid after the victory.
Just look for the Latin translation, "Libertarian", on your ballot.
paintball
This is a bad thing for one very clear reason: People who can't be bothered to walk 15 minutes to their polling station should not be encouraged to vote. They clearly have far too little interest in politics to make an informed decision. If they have genuine reasons for not being able to get to the polling station, they can already register for a postal vote. This is a typical politicians solution to a problem. Instead of reducing the effort required to vote, they should be increasing peoples desire to vote. If people felt that voting could make a difference to their lives, they would make damn well sure they got to the voting booth. As it is, we have a political system which is rigged to maintain the status quo. The two main political parties in the UK are virtually indistinguishable, and the first past the post constituency based system ensures that no-one else ever has a chance at power. OK, I'm talking mainly about national elections here, the article linked is talking about local elections.. but it all filters through. Apathy with national politics breeds apathy with local politics.
Quit your bitching dude. You think you're the only one that pays 36% in taxes? Everyone else pays 16%?
And now, its a "good idea" to let the millions of non-English speaking entry-level workers to have it _that much easier_ for them to simply click-n-steal more of my money?
What makes you think that online voting will attract this catagory of voters? What makes you think they're taking your money? You think temporary H1 visa workers are going to collect social security? Sure, maybe some stay long enough to gain citizenship but I bet the majority pay into it and NEVER see the return.
At one point, in my Federal riding, a candidate legally changed his name to "The Above ZZNone of", which appeared last on the ballot as "ZZNONE OF, The Above".
He didn't win the election, but he didn't place last either
He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
What is Full Representation (PR)?
Full representation (also called "proportional representation," or just "PR") is the principle that any group of like-minded voters should win legislative seats in proportion to its share of the popular vote. Whereas the winner-take-all principle awards 100% of the representation to a 50.1% majority, full representation allows voters in a minority to win their fair share of representation alongside those in the majority.
There is a broad range of full representation systems. Some are based on voting for political parties; others for candidates. Some allow very small groupings of voters to win seats; others require higher thresholds of support to win representation. All promote more accurate, balanced representation of the spectrum of political opinion in a given electorate.
help out.
E-voting could make it possible for the implementation of a true democratic system akin to the one of ancient Athens where every citizen partook in all of the state decisions. There's still the question of whether this would be better for the security and prosperity of a state then our current system of employing a small group of people known as politicians to handle all governmental affairs. Nevertheless at the very least one could allow the people to decide for themselves what laws they want implemented in the state.
http://www.fairvote.org ---
Winner Take All vs. Proportional Representation
There are two basic families of voting systems. Winner-take-all systems elect the candidates who receive the most votes, thereby allowing 50.1% of voters to win 100% of representation. Proportional representation systems allow like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives in proportion to their share of the vote.
Winner-take-all voting systems (among which are plurality and two-round runoff systems) hold as their central tenet that representation should be awarded to the candidates who receive the most votes. That principle may seem fair enough: everyone gets to vote, and the top vote-getters win. And certainly a candidate who wins likely will share many of the same ideas and values as the largest voting block in his or her constituency.
One clear downside to winner-take-all voting, however, is that losing candidates win nothing, even if they win substantial numbers of votes. In a two-candidate race, it is possible for 49.9% of voters to receive no representation. In a three-candidate race, that number can climb to 66.6% - much more than half the electorate can actually oppose the candidate who has earned the right to "represent" it. Examples of such "plurality" victories are common. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton earned less than 45% of the vote in their initial presidential victories, and several American governors have been elected with less than 40% in the 1990?s. In some nations such as Russia and Papua New Guinea, the number of candidacies have multiplied such that district elections regularly are won with less than 20% of votes.
The leap of faith made by advocates of winner-take-all systems is that supporters of losing candidates will be duly represented by either the candidate who win, even if that candidate is their ideological opposite, or by candidates elected elsewhere. They also must believe that voters? opinions can be neatly boiled into two basic options, as typically happens in competitive winner-take-all elections in the United States.
By contrast, proportional representation voting systems allow like-minded groupings of voters to elect representatives to a government in direct proportion to their relative support within a multi-seat constituency. Proportional systems are designed to allocate 10% of the seats to a parties or a slate of candidates that wins 10% of the vote, 25% of the seats to those taking 25% of the vote and a majority of the seats to those winning a majority of the vote. Contrast that last example with the winner-take-all system, in which a majority of the vote can win 100% of the representation, and one begins to understand the fundamental difference between the two systems.
Advocates of proportional voting systems propose that the legislature should be more like a mirror of the population, with majority and minority viewpoints represented. Note that proportional representation advocates still very much believe in majority rule: because proportional systems accurately translate the popular vote into representation, candidates or parties with the greatest support should obtain the largest share of seats in a legislature.
In fact, studies have shown that governments elected by proportional representation are more likely to produce policies that is in line with the "will the majority." There are three major reasons for this tendency. First, when more voters have representation at the policy-making table, a majority in the legislature is more likely to be grounded in a majority of the electorate than when many voters are cut out of representation. Second, when political groupings can form and run candidates from across the spectrum, voters can more precisely define their representation. Third, that increased representation of viewpoints across the spectrum can lead to fuller discussion of important issues, thereby allowing majority interests to be better articulated and defined.
This factsheet is part of the CVD Factbook Series, a compilation of short factsheets covering voting systems and voting system reforms.
help out.
Rigged elections made easy? With no paper trail it will get easier. Four years ago this would have been dismissed as too unlikely but I'm not so sure anymore.
I mean, the tech support challenge in a large scale national election would be enormous. You either have to provide technical support for millions of voters and (since I can conceive that this might involve a combination of users voting from home or going to polling places if they do not have computers, or maybe even everyone goes to a polling place) possibly thousands of polling places around the country who all need help on the same day.
Screw up and large blocks of voters get disenfranchised. I mean, you can't have someone walk into a polling place and say to them "Oh, I'm sorry sir, the computers are down and they won't be back up for three hours". The chaos from the resulting court battles would make Bush v. Gore look like two good freinds having lunch.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
http://www.fairvote.org --
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)
A Fairer Way to Conduct Single-Winner Elections
by the Center for Voting and Democracy
Most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race, then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But the question always arises: was that winning candidate really preferred by most voters?
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a sensible reform for elections where one person wins. Examples include elections for governors, mayors, legislatures using single-seat districts, and US president (for allocation of Electoral College electors). Instant Runoff Voting is better than plurality elections because:
it ensures the election of the candidate preferred by most voters
it eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates
it frees communities of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates
it promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigning
IRV is also better than "two-round" runoff or primary elections, which often result in a change in voter turnout between the two rounds. IRV finishes the job with one election, which means that
election officials and taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for a second election
candidates don't have to raise money for two races, providing some campaign finance reform
the decisive election occurs when voter turnout is highest
How IRV Works: Each voter has one vote, and ranks candidates in order of choice (1, 2, 3, etc.). The counting of ballots simulates a series of run-off elections. All first choices are counted, and if no candidate wins a majority of first choices, then the last place candidate (candidate with the least first-choices) is eliminated. Ballots of voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first then are redistributed to their next-choice candidates, as indicated on each voter's ballot. Last place candidates are successively eliminated and ballots are redistributed to next choices until one candidate remains or a candidate gains over 50% of votes.
Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish--their favorite candidate first, their next favorite second and so on. Voters have every incentive to vote for their favorite candidate rather than the "lesser of two evils" because their ballot can still count toward a winner if their first choice loses. There also is every reason for a voter to rank as many candidates as they want, since a voter's lower choice will never help defeat one of their higher choices.
IRV is used to elect the parliament in Australia and the presidents of the Republic of Ireland and the American Political Science Association. A related method is used in Cambridge (MA) for city council.
Example: In both 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton was elected president with less than 50% of the popular vote. IRV could been used to elect a majority-winner. Here's how it could have worked.
The 1992 Presidential Election--a Simulation
Candidate First Choice % Ballots redistributed
to 2nd choices Final Tally
George Bush 38% +10% = 48%
Bill Clinton 43% +9% = 52%
Ross Perot 19% - 19% X
Assume that, of the 19 percent of voters who ranked Ross Perot first, slightly more than half (e.g. 10% of all voters) ranked George Bush second on their ballots, and slightly less than half (e.g. 9% of all voters) ranked Bill Clinton second. When Ross Perot is eliminated, those votes are redistributed. Bill Clinton ends up with 52 percent of the overall vote, a clear majority, and is declared the winner.
help out.
http://www.fairvote.org ---
The Case for IRV
Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a well-tested voting methods that corrects the defects in plurality elections and two-round runoff elections, the two most widely used voting systems in the country. In the wake of citizen frustration with "spoiler" candidiacies and non-majority winners, efforts to replace plurality election laws with this more democratic alternative have made significant progress in states such as Alaska, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington. Instant runoff voting is an even more obvious improvement over traditional "delayed runoff" elections, as it ensures a majority winner in one election rather than two. This results in higher turnout in the decisive election, a sharp drop in election administration costs and lower costs of winning campaigns. In 2002 San Francisco became the first major jurisdiction to replace "delayed runoff" elections with instant runoff elections.
Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler"-effect will not result in undemocratic outcomes. Instant runoff voting allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters. Plurality voting, used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes wide participation, and traditional runoff elections are costly to the taxpayer and often suffer from low voter turnout.
Instant runoff voting is a winner-take-all system that ensures that a winning candidate will receive a majority of votes rather than a simple plurality. In plurality voting -- as used in most U.S. elections -- candidates can win with less than a majority when there are more than two candidates running for the office. In contrast, IRV elects a majority candidate while still allowing voters to support a candidate who is not a front-runner. IRV is a sensible method in single winner elections.
IRV allows voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth and so on. If a candidate does not receive a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter's top choice indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's favorite candidate who is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate have to support their second choice candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority.
IRV Talking Points
* Ensures majority rule, in contrast to plurality voting.
* Saves money compared to costly two-round runoff elections, which often have low voter turnout.
* Increases voter turnout by giving voters better choices. Experience around the world shows that voter turnout goes up when voters have a wider range of choices.
* Promotes positive, issue-based campaigns because candidates will seek 2nd and 3rd choice votes.
* Creates a clearer mandate for a winning candidate's agenda, giving better direction for policy-making.
* Solves the problem of groupings of voters splitting their votes among similar candidates, which allows a candidate with only minority support to win.
* Minimizes "wasted" votes, votes that don't help elect a winner. To the fullest extent possible, your vote will contribute to electing a candidate that you like.
help out.
The electoral college doesn't favour rural areas over metropolitan. It favours *some* states over other states arbitrarily. And rural areas would *not* be ignored under a simple first-past-the-post system. Candidates would need to seek votes whereever they could find them.
Oh, and if you think rural Americans are hard done by, you're quite deluded. The fact is that these days, most of inland America, including all the farmers, survive on subsidies generated by those evil rotten Democrat-voting city-dwelling pagans on the coasts. Deal with it.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Evaluating Election Turnout
Professor Richard Rose
In the contemporary world, virtually every country holds elections of one kind or another. The right of citizens to vote is now a defining attribute of democracy, and the franchise is a right of every adult citizen and no longer a privilege restricted to a narrowly-defined group. Yet the fact that everyone has a right to vote is not sufficient to make a country democratic.
Global surveys invariably conclude that the majority of regimes in the world today are not democratic; the median regime has been aptly described as "partly free" (Freedom House, 1996). In countries of this nature, the failure to achieve democracy is not the result of denying most citizens the right to vote. It stems from the fact that such elections as are held are not freely competitive, and that regimes do not fully respect the rule of law, which includes the need to limit their own coercion. As long as it has the power to control competition and the counting of votes, a regime has nothing to fear from holding elections which are unfree and unfair.
Democrats are not the only rulers to promote a high voter turnout; a distinguishing feature of modern totalitarian regimes is the compulsory mobilization of subjects to show public commitment to them. Totalitarian rulers share the goal of 100% turnout, even when this is combined with no choice at all of parties or candidates. Thus, when it comes to electoral participation, it is certainly possible to have too much of a good thing. Virtual unanimity in turnout and in voting for a single party produces an election result too good to be true. This essay discusses firstly what constitutes "free and fair" elections and the inter-relationship of turnout and choice in both democratic and totalitarian countries. Secondly, it shows that, although a comparative perspective does make it possible to evaluate turnout as higher or lower by comparison with other countries or a nation's past record, there is no consensus on evaluation, on what a "good" turnout actually is; rational choice theorists can argue that "whatever is, is right", while at the other extreme democratic idealists can argue that anything below 100% turnout is not good enough. And thirdly, this essay concludes by showing what a government can do to make a good turnout better. It examines the question of compulsion to vote, whether it is a worthwhile option, and why a government can never produce "perfect" turnout and still hold an election that is fair and free.
Freedom of Choice Two conditions must be met before citizens are free to choose their governors. The right to vote is a necessary but not a sufficient condition; in addition, elections themselves must be both free and fair. An election is free if a multiplicity of parties are able to compete for votes; without this, the only choice open to an elector is whether to turn out or, if compelled to, whether to vote for the sole party, publicly abstain, or spoil the ballot paper. An election is fair if officials administer the law in ways that protect the rights of each elector and of competing parties, and if the counting of the votes is accurate. As Mackenzie (1958: Part Four) shows in his classic discussion of "electoral morality and its enforcement", the pathology of elections takes many different forms: an unfair election can be corrupt, muddled, stolen or manufactured.
The evaluation, as opposed to the counting, of turnout must not only take into account who can vote but also the radically different significance of voting in unfair and unfree as against free and fair elections. The categories are set out schematically in Figure 31 below. The democratic ideal is an election in which all adults have the right to vote, many parties compete and the election is administered fairly. If the franchise is granted to relatively few adults, but there is free and fair competition for the support of those who can vote, the political system is an oligarchy, and meets at least one condition for dem
help out.
http://www.fairvote.org ---
The Dinosaur in the Living Room
By Rob Richie and Steven Hill
November 11, 1997
Pardon me, but do you see the dinosaur in the living room? It's standing there in the middle of the carpet, and nobody wants to talk about it. We all just tiptoe around it, year after year, pretending it's not there and hoping it will go away.
In spinning the recent elections for partisan implications, commentators generally ignored the glaring fact that, once again, fewer and fewer of us participate. It is typical for any election from overseas to report voter turnout on a near-equal basis with election results, but you had to work mighty hard to find references to turnout in the latest round of voting -- or rather, non-voting.
Let's take Virginia. Turnout in the 1997 governor's race among registered voters was 48% -- as opposed to 67% and 61% in the state's last two gubernatorial elections. And that doesn't even count eligible voters who never registered. Turnout among all eligible adult Virginians was an abysmal 34%.
But Virginians can take heart. Their turnout was better than Broward County, Florida, where a mere 7% of registered voters made their way to the polls. Such shockingly low numbers were found in numerous localities.
Detroit's mayoral primary turnout was 17% of registered voters; in Charlotte's primary, it was 6%. General election turnout was under 40% of registered voters in Miami and New York City and under 30% in Boston and San Francisco. And of course 25% of eligible voters typically remain unregistered.
The United States now has on average the lowest voter turnout in the world among mature democracies. The long-term implications of our plunging voter turnout surely are as serious as fluctuations in the stock market. But because it is creeping up slowly, like a crippling disease, the crisis of our "political depression" generally goes unrecognized.
At what point does a democracy cease to be democratically governed? Bill Clinton was re-elected with the support of fewer than one in four eligible voters. Republicans won control of the House of Representatives with even fewer votes. We maintain the corner posts of representative democracy, but with the active consent of less than half our citizens.
It is time for prominent national and state discussions about this political depression. Thomas Jefferson wrote in his twilight years that "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
Our political leaders and concerned citizens must be as bold as Jefferson and his contemporaries, and consider changes that will allow voters to see a real connection between their votes and policy. Here are some proposals to consider:
* Non-partisan redistricting: One-seat legislative districts give incumbents the opportunity to gerrymander district lines using sophisticated computers and census data. They quite literally choose their constituents before their constituents choose them. This consigns most Americans to "no-choice" legislative races.
* Election holidays, weekend voting and mail-in-balloting: Making the practice of voting more convenient will have a beneficial effect on voter turnout.
* Unicameral state legislatures: Two houses in a state legislature undercut accountability and increase costs; bicameralism is simply redundant in state government, since both houses represent overlapping geographic areas.
* Increased size of legislatures: The U.S. House has remained at 435 representatives since 1910, despite our population nearly tripling. Many state legislatures also are small; California's state senate districts are larger than its congressional districts. Big districts make elections costly and keep representatives distant from constituents.
* Instant runoff voting: As more important rac
help out.
Move to Canada. It seems that most votes in parliament are votes of confidence. Unfortunately, this has the side effect of every politician voting along party lines to be sure that they don't lose the vote.
Now, maybe what you're talking about is different. The way parliament works, if the vote of confidence is lost the entire government goes up for election.
In a majority government (like the past ten years), the PM and a few senior cabinet ministers make the decisions and the backbenchers just follow suit. The opposition votes against.
There's a down side to every system.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
You're all too excited about this, which means you're not apathetic... which means you have no idea what you're talking about. I think I'll go join the Apathy Party. Or not. Whatever.
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
Must have hit a nerve... What's wrong, was your mother robbed by a farmer?
If you don't require folks to register in advance, show up at the poll, and provide a valid ID how can you even pretend the results aren't tainted? Yes, that goes for mail-in voting too. Which I voted against--in a voting booth, at a polling place, on election day!
I think that postal voting has made some good advances in convinince. Only 2 days ago I voted in the Newcaslte local election by post, having ticked the vote by post box on my voter regestration form some time ago. I think that this system is as secure as the previous system which only required you to produce your voter card at the polling station, which was mailed anyway. Perhaps my view is slured as I live in a city center 2 min walk from a post box, and participate in online rentals which mean I always have at least 1 item to post each week. Also it removes a lot of worry over being on holiday etc on voting day and the accossiated hastle with proxy voting etc.
Althought I am a big fan of the internet, I don't want to vote on it. I like paper for certain things, it just feels more reliable to me, like a crredit card statment, thats always real!! Trials, however, are a good thing and I am only one man with one opinion but sirously, the internet is not such a seriuos medium to most people and the post is, simple as that at the moment as far as I am concerned
Just my 2 pence though
If you read a speed reading book, does it take you less time to read the second half?
Voter apathy is not because of having to take time out of a single day to go to some location and make choices. It is not because there are so few decent choices. It is because our one single votes seems to be no more relevant than a drop of water in the ocean.
Let's say your country wants to spend $300 billion dollars to improve the roads. You don't want to pay more taxes, so you vote no. It passes with 66% of the vote. Consider the number of people who do vote, and how little difference your one vote made - with or without your vote, the spending is approved.
My most ardent hope is that enough people will get apathetic about voting to leave most of the decisions to me. :P
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Check out this site: Black Box Voting
With the rise of computerized voting systems, there follows a greater opportunity to cheat in elections. In the past election [for congress], voting districts started using computer voting systems. The problem with this is the lack of accountability. The voting machines are not open source [which in itself is not a problem]. However in the last election, there were a couple incidents in which the vendors "upgraded" [or modified] the code after it was inspected by the accounting people.
In addition, in the last election, one of the candidate owned great number of shares in the voting machine production companies of his state. This is a great potential for conflict of interest.
Lastly, hackers found that the binary files and certain voting data files were found on the company's public FTP site. It was improperly configured so that you can upload your own data files to overwrite the official ones.
Anyways, until we get a more secured system that is more accountable, we should not jump into computerized voting.
Read more about this at: Salon.com Hacking Democracy
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
The problem with voting today is that we just don't do it often enough. What's more, we don't usually get to vote on actual issues. We vote on people, who may or may not stab us in the back once they make it to office. Rather than continuing as a republic, the United States ought to finally do something worthwhile with technology by giving power back to the people. Set up a secure, online voting system that would be used on a regular basis, say once a month. Have 10 items on the ballot, and let people have their say. Once people know that their vote counts towards an actual issue they'll become much more interested. What's not interesting is voting for shmuck politicians and trying to figure out who will do the least terrible job.
Cure voting apathy? Not if you have the I don't want to cast a vote you insensitive clod! option in there
" my young mexican girlfriend votes, how does she fit into your equation?"
if she's hot, you can probably get $5-10 bucks for a quick lay with her. If she does anal, probably get 20 bucks.
" I agree 100% - this elitist crap reeks of "literacy tests" required of black voters back when first given franchise."
Baloney.
Only people who pay taxes and have an investment in society should be given a vote. I'd like to see voting restricted to property owners.
In fact, I'd give people a vote for every dollar they pay in taxes.
Think about it for a moment.
"True, but one must observe that the AOL users slowly but surely have become much more educated and dare I say better netizins since the merge."
That's because they had no where to go but up.
To this day, you still see AOL-idiots posting on usenet they're going to complain to the moderator. Its pathetically sad.
Ironically, AOL killed usenet off for everything except as an anonymous way to download warez.
"you are the reason, not me, that america is going in the shitter."
No, he's not. You *are* the shitter, and your kind is dragging the rest of the country into the toilet.
I'd feel better if you moved to France.
"It would skew the vote toward the wealthy white community."
The entire country's values are based on wealthy white people. The reason this country is great is white people.
I'm not saying people of all creeds and colors shouldn't be treated as equals, but lets face facts here.
Oh right. George Washington Carver and Malcom X. Now its all equal.
"but since this country was founded on the notion of "one person, one vote""
That was not the basis of this country. Me thinks you're somebody who didn't pay attention in history class.
You didn'tn vote last election anyway.
"Get another job."
You have 15 years in at a job. 5 more years and you get your pension. lets not screw this up.
What's that? Vote for candidate X? no problem boss.
Yea, I could complain, but then I dont' get my pension.
That's fucking easy choice.
You must be 22 years old and never had any real responsibility.
Real people get jobs and do whatever needs to be done to hang onto them because they have a wife, 3 kids, a mortage, 2 car payments, and they can't miss a paycheck.
Welcome to the real world.
When you're a kid, and your biggest worry if you're going to buy a new snowboard, then life looks a lot different.
"because it is simply time-consuming and does not fit into their schedule"
Right. 10 minutes twice a year. Sorry to burden them.
I hope they die.
More people might vote, but they'll still be the same people who don't care about it, and are more impressed by image than substance. Getting elected these days is more about showmanship than good ideas, integrity, or even politics. Money spent on advertising is _strongly_ correlated to election victory, which either indicates that advertizing works, or that people are more likely to vote for politician with rich allies. Given that political advertizing is all about image, and maybe some grandiose promises, it's a bad thing that people are so dependent on the ads they see to make their voting decisions. Online voting will make this worse, because now some of the people who don't care just don't bother voting at all. If they can vote online, they might be sitting at home watching TV, and see an ad (if ads are allowed to be shown during polling hours), or something about one of the candidates that makes them decide to vote for that person without knowing anything about what policies that candidate supports. After voting, they'll probably stop feeling guilty for not voting, like in the past, since they think they've done their civic duty just by voting. Of course, they haven't. They've diluted the vote of people who are familiar with the candidates. The media is a critical part of democracy, but biased media (check out FAIR) and flashy ads don't help.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
This will be fantastic! I've always wondered how Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf would run a country! I mean he is already People Magazine's most beautiful person, why not the prime minister too?
Yeah, I know, everyone thinks he's dead-- he's on a secret island just kickin it with Elvis, Tupac, and the easter bunny!
uhh, you've heard of "statistical data" right?
The article also stated that users could vote with Digital Cable boxes. I am remembering the elections from Max Headroom where each of the candidates were each broadcasting and viewers tuned their channels to whomever they wished to vote for and at some predefined time the votes would be tallied. Realtime graphs were available to candidates and they reacted accordingly.
I Don't Work Here
Seriously, do we really want all of the waistoids that this could bring along?
:)
Of course I'm not talking about everyone who doesn't vote but shit! Think about it, for most people who can't go out and vote because of apathy or laziness, what makes you think they aren't just as lazy about picking a canidate or make a decision about a law? That sort of behavior does not lend itself towards research! Most people make up their mind by flashy lights along with bells and whistles.
I think it's a good thing to have people physically get out there and vote. It's kinda like the effort that actually goes into writting a letter to someone and stamping and taking it to the post office instead of just sending them a thank you email. I understand that the topics are apples and oranges but the point is the same.
That being said, I don't vote because of laziness and apathy. I think I have a solid background on the subject
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Loose the stanglehold that the Dempublicans and the Repocrats have on the nomination system. In Texas, the LAWS actually give the two entrench parties the power to set the ballot and made it as hard as hell for any alternates to be meanful.
If course, they is the way is suppose to be. You don't REALLY think your vote is suppose to mean anything??
I did a paper on this subject. I did not find that there was very much to benifate from an electronic system in terms of user turn out.
The main stumbling block with electronic voting is trust. Even if the system is perfectly trust worthy, people must be able to believe that it's trust worthy to trust it. People must be able to see why it is trust worthy. Electronic voting would be too obscure for most people to be able to understand.
Is that making voting easier may actually devalue it. Instead, I think it should be a *paid holiday* so that people still have to go and vote but the poor sop who works for minimal wage has the same benefit as the salaried exec. But the same effort would be required to get to the voting station (well maybe not quite the same, but a whole lot better than it is today)....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It is compulsory for us to vote.
Does this make any difference to who gets into power? - in a word, NO.
Who cares how many people vote when the choice is between Pepsi or Coke?
Remember: Politics is like effluent treatment, the shit rises to the top.
Sheesh. If you'd actually talk with the "apathetic voters" as I have, you'd see that same-day registration, motor-voter registration, e-voting, whips, chains and even wild horses are all insufficient to get them to vote.
... and they still don't care.
... and too many people STILL won't vote.
(I postulate these seemingly preposterous occurances due to my historically hopeless efforts to convince people that if they'd bother to vote down tax renewals and increases, then they'd actually stand a chance of stopping the outflow from their wealth.
They certainly understand the concept, but still, still, still don't care to vote.)
They don't vote because they just don't care. Many times, they even understand the consquences of their not being involved
You could even implement mandatory voting, and firmly lay a monetary fine on those who don't comply
To make virtually any American institution function again, the only effective answer is always "the people's attitudes have to change". Gadgets, methods and legislation cannot compel Human understanding and motivation. What needs to function first and most basically of all, is an operant culture. And such a culture is simply gone from the United States of America.
Voting and the other trappings of political involvement are shadows cast from the light of citizenship. America needs citizens again, instead of the millions and millions of wage-enslaved consumers. Where are we to find them?
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
check it out.
1) Stop funding or depending on state education. The government has no interest in seeing intelligent, well-educated people vote, so they do all they can to prevent intelligent people from becoming educated. However, private educational systems need to raise community leaders in order to attract more students, so they have a vested interest in raising people who are well-educated and intelligent.
Knowledge = Power. Do you think those fatheads in DC really want you to have all of their hard-earned power? That's why they do everything they can to prevent education from happening. And remember, what makes America great is our distrust of our government.
2) Realize your vote and voice does indeed count. See, when you say something, other people hear it. And if what you say has any truth to it, it will ring in their ears. Maybe not today, and maybe not tomorrows, but eventually, they will realize that what you were saying is right. If you disagree with someone, stand up and say, "Hey, I disagree!" If you want something to get done, you say, "Hey, I want something to get done!"
If you shut up and don't vote, then your voice and vote doesn't count. Pretty simple concept, huh?
3) Learn the system! Get out a copy of the constitution and study it. Get educated on the issues, and not just current ones. Let history be your guide. Instead of trying to topple the system, take a lesson from Aikido and use the system in your best interests. Government in a free society is still about 'selfish' people getting stuff done that they want done. Just make sure it is what YOU want and not what THEY want.
Another interesting thing about republics is that it works best when you have lots of people with strong opinions go at it with each other. All the people that refuse to participate, and who ultimately don't care or know enough to care, don't count.
So get off your butt, do some reading, support a candidate, and start flapping your gums!
I guarantee you that every election in America is held by those who want to have it. All the rest don't count. If a majority don't care about our future, that's their problem. I am making sure my views get expressed, and my issues get passed, are you?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
When both parties look the same and both are standing for things I don't want or care about and ignoring the issues I and concerned with, such as free speech, encryption, privacy, Corperate corruption, jobs and the economy. I mean who cares about tax cuts when everyone I know is umemployed.
Worse yet it's almost impossible to get something equilvalent to a resume for these candidates. How should I choose an elected official with less information then I can get on a potential employiee.
With this choice why vote, I might as well flip a coin. Since I have no information to base a decision on.
How can I tell who is the lesser evil?
John
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Don't be so sure that the source will be so concealed. Most people have no idea just how much they are being monitored, and with a sufficiently broken e-voting system, the government, your employer, a credit bureau, will know exactly you are voting.
Now, if the source is concealed, how can you verify that in fact your vote was counted, and not some other source? At the ballot box, you can check that the paper goes in. However, electronically, you have no assurance that your vote is part of the official results.
I wouldn't trust any such system unless you were given the ability to double check all vote results openly, with a temporary number ID for each person, which is secret to them and which they can destroy once the election is over. The number should not be traceable to your name, your address, anything. Otherwise, a future police state will be able to target and silence all dissent, even peaceful dissent, and even imaginary dissent (as a result of spoofing by someone else).
This is largely missing the point, at least as far as UK voters are concerned.
I am one of an increasing number of voters who carefully considers all of the options before deciding not to vote.
For example in the forthcoming local elections, where this system of online voting is being trialled, I have spent some time researching the three possible boxes to mark, Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats, and discovered the following things:
-None of the standing candidates for my area has published any information on their policies, or even made any statements regarding their intentions should they get elected.
-Only one of the candidates even has a published telephone number, and none have published email addresses. All are legally required to publish their street addresses, and only one candidate for my ward actually lives in my ward.
-My local political parties make little or no effort to interact with the community. Their online presence is laughable - the local Conservative party has a very poor site with no details on their policies, and no mention of the forthcoming elections, let alone any details of the candidates. The Labour party's site is worse and the Lib Dems have no site.
In summary, I have the following choices:
-Vote for one of the parties based on their national polices (none of the 3 are appealing).
-Vote for Labour based on their running of the local council to date (a joke).
-Pick one at random.
-Spoil the ballot paper
-Not vote.
Since spoiling the paper (for example writing 'I do not consider any of these worth voting for') merely creates a statistic ignored by the government and the media, my only option is not to vote.
IIRC published government research said that 21% of the electorate would be more likely to vote if voting were made easier by online voting etc.
The government needs the address the remaing 79% who don't consider this would affect them.
Across the UK just 30% of people vote in local elections.
In my demographic (I am a 22 year old male) I suspect this is more like 1%, with the bulk of voters being 50+.
Among my peers, I know of no-one who intends to vote, although many have considered it and investigated the options available.
Just my take on things.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
Nice idea perhaps, but you must live in the United States. Please remember the millions of us unfortunates living in the Occupied Territories[1] are forbidden by our masters in Washington to impose a literacy test as a condition of voting.
At any rate, while there is merit to your suggestion, the devil is i the details. Both major parties would game the rules to exclude as many of their opponents as possible and I can't come up with any rules that could prevent it.
Personally I'd prefer a poll tax. Revise the Constituition to strike XXIV and allow a poll tax again except with some sort of hard limit to prevent it becoming so high as to make voting reserved to country club Republicans and hollywood Democrats. But a poll tax would serve to discourage the disinterested/uneducated from voting while avoiding the problems inherent in "who writes the test".
Collect the tax at the point of registration for voting, not at the poll itself. This would have two positive benefits. It would eliminate the temptation to have lots of little single issue elections where only the people who stand to benefit would pay to vote and make it a lot harder for Democrats to bus in a load of homeless to districts where they need a little extra boost.
[1] The so called Voting Rights Act is patently unconstituitional, which is why Congress didn't even suggest imposing it on the US, only on us provisional citizens in the Occupied Territories, which are still being ruled under special "Reconstruction" laws almost 150 years after being conquered and forced to join the Union.
Democrat delenda est
They are talking about allowing voting by SMS text message, a medium where messages are not guaranteed delivery! Even if they send you a receipt, if you don't get one you can't know if (a) your vote was lost or (b) the receipt was lost.
Also, the "from" phone number is spoofable to the recipient. The phone companies can probably tell where a message came from, but are these systems being designed by security experts or naive low bidders?
This whole thing is an extremely bad idea.
Yes, no tax monies used to support the primaries.
However, I would argue that comes about as a result of prohibiting the parties from using public property or public voting gear, but you are right, it is best to spell it out explicitly.
Of course, even spelling things out explicitly doesn't work - witness "... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
www.eFax.com are spammers
in the UK we have the elected politicians and non-elected peer representitive.
It's the job of the politicians to persuade the masses that they are right. it's the job of the non-elected house to prove that they are right or wrong.
unfortunatly the current UK government want's to turn the house of review into a house of appoities, and just another old boys club.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Actually the hereditary peers (whose only advantagesin government are that they have been expeosed to it from before birth, and can have a long view since until recently they couldn't be "recalled" make a decreasing proportion of the Upper House.
More are life peers, which is equivalent to an idea seen in other and republican legislatures - life senators etc.
Prime Ministers when they retire from the Commons are probably worth keeping on in some form, they get life peerages if they want.
It is tending toward some sort of elected assembly, but some of the examples available of that are less than thrilling.
Nay, nay--strengthen it! This is a federation of state republic, and that meanbs One state, one vote! If you want your presidential vote to be 100% worthless, just move to one of the low population "fly-over" states between the coasts. Only the big states (NY, IL, CA, FL, TX) count for much in the electoral college. Small states (WY, AK, MT, UT, KS, NB, ND, SD, etc.) are written off--all of them combined won't swing the election, so the parties write them off.
It is not progress to invent snazzier riot armor, "nonlethal" crowd subjugation weapons, a better electric chair. And for much the same reasons it's not progress to invent a more effective means of mob tyranny ("democracy"). Tyranny is not more acceptable because the blame has been spread thin over a whole population; it's worse, with laws being changed repeatedly on the whim of whatever pressure-group is currently top of the pile, leaving nothing safe and nobody's pocket un-picked.
That was why the founders of the USA invented the constitution, to rein in democracy and limit the grasp of the state. Unfortunately this can now be seen to have been an instance of "setting the fox to guard the henhouse". The restraints are beaten ever back, because the politicians sell themselves on their ability to pick pockets and give freebies, and the customers (the electorate) don't like being balked in their larceny.
All moves towards "direct democracy" or "easier democracy" make the problem worse not better.
It's not freedom to have a hand in your neghbors pocket, and his in yours! Freedom is when you both keep your own hands in your own damn pockets and work for a living rather than voting yourself one.
One UID, One Vote!
But seriously, America can't even keep track of if you're living or dead, or voted in a different district already. Not to mention dimpled chads.
And all that is without any online voting to complicate the issue. Perhaps we should call it E-mocracy, especially if vote-ware and the ilk comes around/etc.