Slashdot Mirror


British E-Voting Pilots Announced

rimberg writes "The Department for Constitutional Affairs has announced it is going to trial Electronic voting using the internet and/or telephone. Bridget Prentice, Elections Minister at the department said 'We need to make sure that people can vote in more convenient ways consistent with a modern lifestyle. [...] More and more people, and particularly young people, are using the internet everyday. We need to see if we can use this to encourage people even more to participate in the democratic process.' The Open Rights Group (Think British EFF) have responded by saying 'E-voting threatens the integrity of our elections and we oppose its use in our democracy.'"

29 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Increased turnout by Kelz · · Score: 4, Funny

    I do definitely plan to vote against Labor in the next election.

    ... now if only I didn't live in the US!

    1. Re:Increased turnout by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in a Tory\Liberal marginal seat, so a vote for NuLabour[sic] is as much use as a vote for The Monster raving loony party Fortunately my political views are no where near those of the Labour party, but the joys of the first past the post system are not lost on me. Instead of this pointless move, why aren't they doing something useful, like introducing the single transferable vote system. That would re-engage more people than this gimmick.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    2. Re:Increased turnout by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm in the UK. Fancy doing a vote swap? I'll vote against Labour, and you can vote against the Republicans at your next election :-)

      -Stephen

    3. Re:Increased turnout by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's interesting that both you and the OP are talking about who to vote against. Is the political situation both here in the UK, and over in the States so bad that a vote is no longer a positive statement for a political party? I know I'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    4. Re:Increased turnout by Nuskrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Politically, I'm closest to the LibDems, I think. I don't find them particularly inspiring, though. Lembit Opik's recent antics are an embarrassment.

      What exactly is an embarrasment, and furthermore, what does his private life (which isn't even sordid compared to most politicians, for anyone not following the story, he's going out with a not very good Romanian popstar) have to do with his politics, or the politics of the party? This is what is wrong with modern politics, it's all tabloids and spin. It's a system that allows you to impeach a president for extramarital affairs, but not for sending thousands of men to their deaths fighting a war started on false premises.

  2. really? by User+956 · · Score: 2, Funny

    British E-Voting Pilots Announced

    I was wondering when they'd let Otto do something more than just fly the plane.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. Open, Receipts by mfh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope they open up the code so people can see how it works (or fails to work). A paper or electronic receipt system would be crucial, as stated time and time again.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  4. I bet my EVote goes to /dev/null by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ironically that's also the only candidate worth voting for.

  5. Has anyone ever... by popo · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Has anyone ever come up with one really good reason why a paper record of all votes is a bad idea?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:Has anyone ever... by Virak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It makes it way too difficult to slowly take over the world, one government at a time. We should welcome our new overlords, not try to make it harder for them.

    2. Re:Has anyone ever... by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has anyone ever come up with one really good reason why a paper record of all votes is a bad idea?

      It leaves a record on paper.

      KFG

  6. Good God, they mean for Parliament elections? by saskboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    e-voting is unsuitable for anything more serious than who people think will supplant Britney Spears as the next queen of teen pop.

    Diebold voting is a fraud, and it happens right in front of the user, on a dedicated machine. The voter can't even see their marked ballot go into a container for verification in the event of computer fraud! It's a sham.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  7. Sounds Great by Radon360 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now when someone tries to cast a vote from home on their spyware-riddled PC, later to find out it wasn't counted or cast incorrectly, then what? Or worse a whole bunch of voters are disenfranchised and don't even know it because of their clunky equipment.


    Sorry fellas, you have to leave the internet out of this idea for now. Get the bugs worked out of the stand-alone electronic voting machines first.

  8. Secure voting will be a tough undertaking by MonGuSE · · Score: 5, Funny

    All I have to say is my 2 million zombie controlled pc's will be voting for myself in the next election.

  9. mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vote By Mail has been a huge success here in Oregon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting/

    1. Re:mail? by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      When we tried it here in the UK, a judge said it would be"worthy of a banana republic". So what works for Oregon may not work for us.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  10. Re:E-voting is the future and it should stay there by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eventually, through the use of Internet voting, it will be possible for people to vote on proposed legislation directly. If there's some issue you care deeply about, e.g. a declaration of war, then you can vote directly. If it's not an issue you care deeply about, you can let your elected representative cast a vote on your behalf.

    The founders of the United States intentionally avoided letting people vote directly on legislation in order to avoid mob justice and ensure that the law was formed by those with at least some training in principles of governance. You'd let people vote directly on a war? Remember that the U.S. initiative against Iraq was helped by the confusion in the popular mind that the 9/11 hijackers had significant ties to Iraq. If the public is emotionally stirred up and ignorant enough, all kinds of bad things can happen if you give them the change to go wild. Furthermore, the people would instantly vote away their liberties if they thought it would gain them some security, and they would then turn on that portion of the population which rejected calls for tighter restrictions on whatever matters.

  11. Perl Script for PM! by malevolentjelly · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait until Perl Script wins a seat in Parliament, or perhaps even position as Prime Minister!

  12. Voting is pointless as it is, so let's just do it. by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We don't really get a voice anyway in our two-party (of any power) state. No proportional representation, no referenda on issues (despite being promised them, for, say, the Euro), and a political system that's gamed to work in one way whoever gets into power.

    Let's face it.. we've reached a reasonably happy status quo with the current system and nothing too shocking happens under it. The problems we're having now are little different to those of ten or twenty years ago, and the average Brit has just as little say on matters as they ever have. This has led to a disillusioned populace that isn't really THAT interested in voting. I don't vote either, because it a) would have no effect, and b) all the parties look the same and are likely to lie and change their policies once they get in anyway (like Labour did).

    Perhaps the dangers of electronic voting are worth it because our current system is so ineffectual. The room for abuse of electronic voting is no worse than the abuse of the entire system of government going on now.

  13. I can just imagine parliment now by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    "The hounourable Prime Minister Goatse man of the GNAUK Party wishes to have the floor"

  14. Why must it be stupidly convenient? by cliffski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We need to make sure that people can vote in more convenient ways consistent with a modern lifestyle."

    We are trying to make voting as convenient as buying a bag of crisps. why?

    If someone can't be bothered to walk or drive half a mile to a polling station and put a cross in a box, do they really *care* who they are voting for? Far too many people treat voting flippantly (I don't like the look of him, I never vote for a woman, He has horrible hair etc) as it is. Would we be any worse of if voters had to take a simple test before voting? If you can't name the leaders of the main 3 parties, and pick their faces out of a lineup, are you really informed enough about the issues to vote sensibly?

    Politicians in the UK panic about low turnout and think its because voting is hard. Its not, its just that a
    First-Past-The Post system means that most of us have wasted votes, even if the main 2 parties were different, which they aren't.
    Proportional representation FTW.

    Just a thought.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:Why must it be stupidly convenient? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Funny

      Would we be any worse of if voters had to take a simple test before voting?

      We had this in the United States, but it ended up that black people always failed the tests, so we made it illegal because it was racist.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    2. Re:Why must it be stupidly convenient? by cliffski · · Score: 2, Informative

      you must be American :D. there are never queues in the UK that I'm aware of. I've never queued more than 4 seconds to cast a vote my entire life.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    3. Re:Why must it be stupidly convenient? by VJ42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What if you were able to take your time with voting instead of being rushed through a line/queue with 20 people waiting for you to finish when you finally get to the polling station? Whereabouts do you live*, and how long do the people near you take to put a cross in a box? I have never ever had to wait more than 10 seconds to vote, and have weeks running up to election day to make up my mind (admittedly last general election I changed my mind at the last minute and spoiled my ballot paper). Usually there is absolutely no one else at the polling station except the clerk and returning officer.

      *If you're not in the UK, we have quite small constituencies and lots of polling stations in each, combined with a low voter turnout. That means no waiting and quick results.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
  15. Or another way to put it by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people are really dumb.

    --
    Deleted
  16. How to vote is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The falling turnout at elections has nothing to do with the technology of how we vote. The problem is the type of people who are foisted on us as our politicians. We have come to expect that politicians never answer a question directly, give misleading answers, resort to ad hominems, and generally give the impression of being thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy, with the "bonus" of superficial, irritating charm. In the UK there are several shining examples in the upper echelons of political power. They are intrinsically unable to command respect and trust. And before any politician brings up the complaint that if you don't vote, you don't get to change the politicians, one has to say politicians are all of the same distasteful character, so there is no choice. The policies may differ, but the fundamentally slimy character behind the mask remains the same.

    --Cynic Central

  17. Re:DDS Attacks? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hahhaahha. Ouch, thank you for correcting. My typo bad. I did mean distributed denial of service. Er, my Engleesh she not so good, here in Nigeria the schools suck. Please send money to me by Western Union, I guarantee terrific election results.

  18. Re:E-voting is the future and it should stay there by mibus · · Score: 2, Funny

    You'd let people vote directly on a war? Remember that the U.S. initiative against Iraq was helped by the confusion in the popular mind that the 9/11 hijackers had significant ties to Iraq. If the public is emotionally stirred up and ignorant enough, all kinds of bad things can happen if you give them the change to go wild. Furthermore, the people would instantly vote away their liberties if they thought it would gain them some security, and they would then turn on that portion of the population which rejected calls for tighter restrictions on whatever matters.
    Yup, I'm so glad we don't let people vote directly. We'd be at war and be losing civil liberties left and right!
  19. I would like to made proposale. by sporkme · · Score: 2, Funny

    hello and my name is Prince Intembe Kumbobo and I am UK national reside Nigeria and having ran from polotical persucation from new administraton. My associates and me are set up a new party in nigeria To Disloge present administraton. we were and then are in large possession of sums of money and wish to use it to make Differences in uk. I friend, am sure that, you agrees with our plite and fear the Mr Bush and he's chronies.Please to forward to me your voter ID and PWD as well as our banking accounts numbers so to my vote then count. Exchanging in this, is our vote by your behalf and to you is $105343,54 USD in funds to make the vote. You are finding, this exchange is fair, or more than.

    Many blessing.
    Intembe