Slashdot Mirror
Online Voting In 2004 To Require Windows
letxa2000 writes "According to this article at CBS, a trial Internet voting system will be made available to 100,000 voters in 2004--particularly military and overseas U.S. citizens. As an American living overseas I think this is a step in the right direction. But the article also says 'Voters using SERVE can register to vote and cast their ballots from any computer using Microsoft Windows with Internet access.' Why the Windows requirement? Is that really going to make online voting secure?"
I think "Dubya" is going to use that flaw as his "Ace in the hole" just in case his popularity drops... It's so much more tidy than another Florida fiasco over "pregnant chads".
--
It's absolutely amazing what they can do down at the NSA these days. They know what you'll be thinking before you even finish reading this page.
Anyways Java should be the standard for voting on any os.
Wouldn't surprise me if M$oft has something to do with this.
The reason just windows is because that as much as we hate it, we are in the minority of computer uses, they are not going to Bata test a new technology on a system that only a maximum of 5% of computer users will have (and yes I am being overly optimistic here) if this works for them the next platform will be Mac. Linux may never get it, unless more people use Linux,
Because it's a form of segregation. They're basically saying that if you're a part of a minority, you are not allowed to vote. What if you were black or female and the government said: "you are not allowed to vote because you are not [white/male]." Well, I am a Linux user. The government is dispersing more voting rights to people who run Windows but not me becuase I don't. Of course, with most people who are part of the majority, they won't give a shit about how the minorities feel because they will never be a part of the minority. Welcome to the root of most major problems with the world today.
and I doubt that they would want to open up the code to the voting system that could create a large number of people trying to skew the results so that the results are not accurate.
Open source code tends to be stronger security-wise than closed source code because of the many eyes principle (among others). Perhaps you should try to understand why open source is good for security before making any assumptions.
I don't know what the answer is, but at lest they are looking at moving the process forward.
Quite frankly, I think this a big step backwards for democracy. Not only are we reintroducing voter segregation in the US, we're soon to have even more votes which we cannot trust.
Join Tor today!
Using Linux is a something you chose to do. Using Linux was not something you were born to do
What if I cannot afford Windows? Microsoft WindowsXP comes with a price-tag of a couple hundred dollars or more, plus exceedingly high hardware requirements. Indeed the cost of Windows plus some software to make it useful can even exceed the cost of the hardware it runs on. Linux costs me nothing and can scale down to just about any hardware. Open source solutions are excellent options for those who are not well-endowed financially (like myself), especially in our current economic environment.
It's an option to those who are not affluent. Consider people who may purchase very cheap computers from Walmart running Lindows (cheaper because there is no Microsoft tax associated with the computer). Is being poor a matter of choice?
You make a very good point, but it seems to me that this Windows-only nonsense may also extend to segregating the rich and poor. What if the software had requirements with even heftier price-tags?
Of course, cost is not the only factor here. What if I require a secure system? What if I require a stable system? We are all aware of the Windows track-record, and it is beyond pathetic. What if I have no choice to not use Windows? What if the matter is an ethical decision? Microsoft are a criminal organization, as proven by the United State's own judicial system. What if my ethics and principles require me to not fund a criminal operation? (Of course, this rides on choice fundamentally, but for those with strong ethics, the choice may not exist.)
Join Tor today!
There is the matter that in order to use this system, I must pay money to a corporation.
Presently, the only requirement for me to vote in a United States election is that I must be registered to vote within a specific scope. In order to be registered, I must be a United States citizen.
Using this system means that I must not only meet that requirement, but also post a ~$200 fee to Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) in Redmond, WA. I think it's highly unethical to require voters to pay a very politically active organization that may not agree with their views in order to utilize a mechanism to participate in a democratic election. Voting mechanisms must all be equally available to anyone who has the right to vote.
(The terms I am speaking in make the assumption that online voting is the only option. This is not yet the case, but taking technological trends into consideration, traditional voting means may eventually fade into obscurity. If we continue on this road of platfor dependence, we may create problems in the big picture.)
Join Tor today!
you wouldnt need to use the as clause if you are using that as a subselect you asshat fucking turdburglar.
Your argument is specious. You are not being prevented from voting. Don't have a computer running Windows? How hard is it for you to access one long enough to vote? Harder than lining up for your turn at the voting booth?
The stated purpose of this system is to increase the accessibility to the election process. Are there people who have no other option? I cannot say. Imagine someone who does not have access to the polls because they are out of range or do not have the capasity to transport themselves to one (no legs, no car, et cetera). Perhaps any such example is entirely contrived.
However, what concerns me the most is the trend. This voting mechanism, by its nature, benefits a special interest group and not necessarily the interests of the American people who paid for it. It is at the very least a form of favoritism and considering technological progress, online voting could replace existing mechansims the same as the booth replaced the ballot box. Imagine if the only way to vote was on a system owned by Microsoft (a very politically active organization). You decide.
Join Tor today!
Now you have the potential to vote for a particular candidate because your vote for the opposition could become known. This technology will help turn voting into a means of convincing an oppressed public that they are free.
Join Tor today!