Slashdot Mirror


The World's First National Internet Election

InternetVoting writes "Expanding on the limited 2005 Internet voting pilot successes, the small European nation of Estonia will become the first country to allow voting in a national parliamentary election via the Internet. Fresh off the news of France's successful primary election using Internet voting and the announcement of 12 new UK election pilots, is Europe leaving the U.S. behind?"

19 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As soon as "internet voting" has been reviewed to see how well a rigged election can be performed, the U.S will switch, too.

    1. Re:Well.. by ChameleonDave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No. When people don't vote, it is not usually because they know so little about politics that they don't know who to vote for, but rather because they know so much about politics that they know there is nobody to vote for.

      I have never voted. No party respects the values of equality, freedom and democracy that I have.

      If all the non-voters came out, they would boost the slightly-progressive vote considerably, and perhaps prevent the worst excesses of the craziest parties.

    2. Re:Well.. by User+956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have never voted. No party respects the values of equality, freedom and democracy that I have.

      That brings up a good point. If there were an "abstain" column, then you could show your interest in politics by participating, but also show your disdain for the available candidates, by choosing neither of them.

      If it is the case that a large portion of America doesn't vote because they don't like the choices, this would be an interesting way to track that.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    3. Re:Well.. by darkpixel2k · · Score: 4, Funny

      is Europe leaving the U.S. behind?

      They will be leaving the US behind...right up until their "secure" internet election elects "That goatse guy"...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  2. Whoa... by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is Europe leaving the U.S. behind?

    I didn't know they were related...

    Nice dis of the US though [for no reason whatsoever]. I should point out that Canada doesn't have voting over the net either. Neither does most of the free world. [and yes, I'm Canadian...]

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Whoa... by MrCopilot · · Score: 4, Funny
      I should point out that Canada doesn't have voting over the net either. Neither does most of the free world. [and yes, I'm Canadian...]

      Thanks for pointing that out , I guess the words World's First in the headline was not enough. [You have my sympathy.]

      --
      OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    2. Re:Whoa... by spisska · · Score: 4, Interesting

      is Europe leaving the U.S. behind?

      Apples and oranges. Many of the same factors that make a national election possible in a country like Estonia make it impossible in the US.

      For one thing: The United States does not have a national election. The US has 50 concurrent state elections for federal offices. At the same time, there are 50 separate elections for state-level offices, and thousands of elections for county, city, schoolboard district, ward, etc offices, not to mention ballot initiatives, referenda, multiple-selection judicial contests, and so on.

      A national election in a country like Estonia involves only one choice -- for party. Parliamentary seats are divided among parties based on the percent of returns for each party, and the party decides which of its candidates sits in Parliament. The party with the most seats nominates a Prime Minister who then appoints a government, which assumes power provided it has the approval of the Parliament.

      If the party with the largest number of votes is unable to persuade the whole assembley to approve its nomination, the chance goes to the party with the next largest share of votes, and so on. Thus you can get some quite strange bedfellows in European coalition governments (like the Red-Green coalition in Germany until recently). But this is all separate and distinct from the voter, who has no say beyond party preference as to how the government is comprised or who the Prime Minister is.

      Thus a national election in Estonia is one question on one ballot that is the same for the whole country.

      In Maricopa County, AZ, last November there were 19 different initiative and referendum measures in addition to the usual slate of federal, state, county, city (Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, etc), judicial, school board, etc. races that varied according to ward, precinct, township, jurisdiction, school board district, etc. While their ballot was one of the longest in the country in November, the same complexity and range of contests is true in any big city.

      When you have one question on one ballot for the whole voting population, then internet voting is feasible. When your ballot is much more complex, much longer, and requires strictly validating voters according to location and eligibility, it becomes much more problematic.

      Apples and oranges.

  3. Paper trail? Independent audits? by powerpants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't all the qualms with electronic, paperless voting apply here?

    1. Re:Paper trail? Independent audits? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't all the qualms with electronic, paperless voting apply here?
      If it works for American Idol I don't see why it wouldn't work for national elections. Just imagine, the more you text message a particular number the more votes your candidate would get! How cool would that be?
  4. Perhaps, but... by wyldeone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The question is, is that a bad thing? We have enough problems trying to secure our electoral process without internet voting to make everything even more difficult. In addition to the security concerns (now elections can be hacked from anywhere, Russia, China, Iran) there's also the problems with coercion. With secret balloting, it's more-or-less impossible to coerce voters, because there no way to prove how someone voted. But when you can stand over their should while they vote, it becomes a lot easier.

    I think the biggest question is, what problem is this trying to solve? What's wrong with non-internet voting that internet voting will fix? And will whatever that is be worth the consequences? I'm one who feels like the days of a pen-marking-paper ballots should come back (hey, we still have them in my district) and leave behind all of these more modern, more easily hacked systems. Is it really that important that the results of the election be known the of the election? Important enough that we're willing to sacrifice the security of the balloting?

    --
    In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
  5. How to stop bribery !? by BurningTyger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, the point of voting in person is to provide a safe place so that no one sees who you vote for except for yourself.

    What measure did they take to ensure that no one looks over the voter's computer screen and bribe/threaten the voter ?

  6. Nice of them to let the 1337 h4xx0rs vote by echinda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Population of Estonia: 1,324,333

    Number of votes that will be cast in next Estonian election: 13,371,337

  7. Leaving behind secret ballot, security by btempleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Voting over the internet has its attractions, but it often involves leaving behind the concept of the secret ballot (as does mail-in voting as in Oregon of course) and also can generate serious security risks. Not enough details on the Estonian system -- if the real voting is done on the small box they put their card into and it can generate a secure channel to the voting system, then it's possible to do it securely even with a compromised network or PC, but if the PC is involved in anything but passing along encrypted traffic, there are serious risks.

    Likewise if these are terminals at home, secret ballot goes out the window. If these are terminals in a secured location just using the internet as a platform for encrypted communication with a server, you can still have secret ballot.

    But in any case, voting over the internet presents real problems in auditability. Where is the paper trail?

    It's good to be left behind in these areas.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  8. Re:Perhaps we can do away with parliments by 0123456789 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Instead of voting in representatives, why not just have an online referendum for every law change etc?

    A really, really bad idea. It's called mob rule, or the tyranny of the majority. Unpopular, difficult decisions are (occasionally) made by governments. For example, in the US, the civil rights reform in the 60s.

    Plus government funding would end up solely going to the most populous areas. Government services, on the other hand, generally cost more in rural, rather than urban, areas (for example, rubbish collection is cheaper in a city, where the truck has to go less distance between pick ups, than in remote locations).

    Of course, the status quo is hardly nirvana either...

  9. Re:Perhaps we can do away with parliments by c_forq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At least in America, the representational system was put in place not due to communications, but from fear of the problems with direct democracy. Under this system it is much easier to go to war, as if everyone gets hot tempered about Canada they can accelerate things with pretty much no checks. Also in this system you are unable to enact positive yet possibly unpopular policy (like freeing slaves, desegregating schools, allowing women to vote, etc.) If you've ever seen the amount of minute tax increases to increase local school funds turned down you would also know the government would have a nightmarish time raising funds. More democratic does not mean better, this is why there are pretty much no democracies in the world anymore.

    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  10. No, that is not the reason by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What you describe is "direct democracy". They had that in Athen. It has all kind of fun effects, like first executing the homecoming officers for leaving their dead beind after a lost battle, then, after realizing that was a bad idea, executing the people who ordered the executions. Or executing one of the worlds greatest philosophers (Socrates) for being a stubborn pain in the ass.

    The idea behind representative democracy is to avoid the "heat of the movement" decisions. In fact, the major problem with representative democracy these days, is that with the constant polling and professional politicians who adjust their views to follow the vims of the (voting part of) the population, we are getting closer to direct democracy. Representative democracy works best when politicians actually stand for something.

  11. Re:Vote blank by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Surely there must be a way for you to vote for "none of the above" as Per Abrahamsen says. For example in Mexico you can cross out the whole ballot to make your vote null. It is still counted but it's not alloted to anybody. And it is usually a good measure of protest. High intentionally nullified vote count is always given a lot of air time and puts pressure on the government to take some corrective actions.

    The problem I see with this is that they just know you are not happy, but there is no other mechanism to provide feedback as to what are you actually upset about. Best way is always to get involved. Support those that most closely resemble our values (in the real world nobody will ever match our values 100%), or if they are truly appalling, start our own, join one and change it from inside, etc. Inaction only gives the fascists currently in power to continue turning the US in a police state and that is bad for you and bad for the rest of the world given the USA's power and penchant for meddling in other people's affairs :P

    I'm not trolling, if somebody disagrees please reply, don't just mod me down =P

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS
  12. Re:Vote blank by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > I'm sure paper ballots work great when your country has less than half the population of Los Angeles.....

    The logic behind that kind of statements escape me. If we have the half the population of LA, we also have the same population as half of LA. So have a paper ballot in one half of LA, and another paper ballot in the other half of LA, and add the results.

    Hvor svært kan det være?

  13. It actually works that way in Switzerland by DrYak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Instead of voting in representatives, why not just have an online referendum for every law change etc?


    It's called direct democracy.

    And it's already the case in Switzerland. By law an change in the constitution must be approved by a referendum. Any law proposed by the public (a public initiative with enough signarutes) must also undergo mandatory referendum. Same goes for any international treaties (when Switzerland accept some treaty it's not in fact the country but the actual swiss population !). And any petition that collects enough signature can ask any other proposed law to undergo referendum, which happens almost always. Thus almost no law haven't been voted before being applied.

    Although that sometimes people aren't interested about the vote, there's always at least one third of the population that participate in any vote (that's still a much more important and more representative part of the population than any assembly), and much more citizens get involved in more important votes (up to two third approximately. There's always a third that don't give a damn shit about what's happening and accept whatever the other want).

    And unlike other /.s fear, with enough quality information, even unpopular laws get passed. The Swiss people, for exemple *HAS* voted for increasing taxes (like the introduction of VAT) *HAS* voted for spending money on international help (several help problem in eastern europe ; also contributing to the EU even if not an actual member of it), not to speak other things mentioned in this thread (like granting vote-right to women : the historical initial Landsgemeinde - a vote by rasing hand - was reserved to men). Even some communities, after referendum, has granted voting-rights to strangers for community's related referenda.

    And the fact that we constantly vote (each few months) has three results :
    - The population isn't fed up with voting. In fact at least one third of the population is getting used to the idea of always, no matter what, giving its opinion on the voted law.
    - Being used to give its opinion makes that the population more often votes according its opinion of the law. The votes aren't used as ad hominem attacks to express disagreement with the politicians that are proponents of them (unlike what happened in France where the EU constitution was also partly refused because people disliked the politicians that encouraged the pro-EU vote, and note only because of the content).
    - In the USA because the biggest part of the population contribution to politics are election and they only happen seldom, the different parties pile up a lot of money and then deploy campaign that start to look as marketing. In Switzerland nobody could afford spending that much money every couple of month and therefore, most of the information the public has comes from debates, from (non-paid-for by the government) journalists' articles, experts on the subject (economists / scientist / or whatever is related to the subject of the law being voted) from both camps give opinions, etc. Therefore the population tends to vote being more informed as enticed by ads, and end up accepting difficult decisions, fully knowingly the implications.

    The only difference with what you said is that we don't use internet that much for voting (except for some pilot projects). Only as an information medium.
    Voting is still mainly done by dropping an envelope in an urn, or by mail. But there are active development done to introduce e-voting in order to facilitate the voting procedure and attract a higher participation)
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]