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.'"

Comments

Increased turnout

[Kelz]

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

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

Re:Increased turnout

[VJ42]

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.

Open, Receipts

[mfh]

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.

Has anyone ever...

[popo]

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

Re:Has anyone ever...

[Virak]

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.

Good God, they mean for Parliament elections?

[saskboy]

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.

Sounds Great

[Radon360]

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.

Secure voting will be a tough undertaking

[MonGuSE]

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

Re:E-voting is the future and it should stay there

[CRCulver]

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.

I can just imagine parliment now

[antifoidulus]

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

Why must it be stupidly convenient?

[cliffski]

"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.

Re:Why must it be stupidly convenient?

[VJ42]

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.

Re:mail?

[VJ42]

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.