Slashdot Mirror
UK Voters Want To Vote Online
InternetVoting writes "A recent UK research survey by NTL:Telewest Business found that nearly half of the younger respondents would be more likely to vote online. This year the UK government has authorized 13 local election pilots including Internet voting. ntl:Telewest Business estimates 10 million UK households have broadband and 4,789 local libraries offer public access. In the US political parties are beginning to test the Internet voting waters with the Michigan Democratic Party to offer Internet voting in their 2008 Presidential Caucus. There were some notable differences in generational interest: 'The YouGov poll of almost 2,300 people, carried out on behalf of NTL:Telewest's business unit, found that younger voters were even more positive about the idea of alternatives to the trusty ballot box. 57 per cent of 18-34 year olds liked the idea of evoting, but only a third of the over 55s were as keen.' Given security and privacy concerns in the states, how likely is this to appeal to US voters? "
till Prime Minister goatse man has to salute the queen!
I've never had to walk more than 200m to get to vote - maybe if you can't be bothered to make that effort then your vote shouldn't count...
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Very likely if they can find a company (NOT Diebold) who can manage to make it a secure process. I certainly appreciate all the things that are government related that I can do online now. Voting would be useful. Those that don't want to, or cannot vote online can continue to do so at voting stations. The combination should cover everyone.... IF they can make it secure and keep the graft out of the process.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Should be like you driving test. If you want it , turn up and fucking do it. The world is not there for your wishful may or may not convenience.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I think e-voting can work. As long as the votes are kept totally public then I see it as being viable. It's the only way you can be sure everyone's vote was really counted how it should've been. The moment you start hiding votes and secreting them away you introduce the possibility for corruption from the organizers.
So, my question is: what's wrong with everyone knowing what everyone else voted? Does it create bias in the workplace? Do Liberal bosses see their Conservative employees votes and thus not give them raises, or worse, in an at-will state such as mine, just fire them outright?
Is this the kind of person you want to be your boss anyway? Wouldn't the system naturally cleanse itself from people like that? Sure, at first it'd be a bumpy road and a lot of chaos would ensue, but it seems to be the final state of things would be a lot smoother than the state of not even knowing if your vote was counted right, or if the people counting the votes stacked them somehow. It just seems like hiding votes has always been a crutch.
But please, correct me if I'm wrong...
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
No career politician is suitable for office and we don't need an online system to have a "non of the above" option. There's a choice between candidates from 2 right-wing partys and the (guaranteed 3rd place) liberals, at least the vote rigging scandal will be amusing.
"Given security and privacy concerns in the states, how likely is this to appeal to US voters? "
For anyone to trust online voting, we would need some sort of paper trail or other form of accountibility. Can I print out a vote receipt? Not in the US.
Heck the only reason that we kinda trust the voting system we have is tradition and a lack of other choice. No the two party political system here is actually reliant on the electoral college and the untrackable vote to hold their two faceted monopoly on US Government. For further reading: http://gning.org/electoral.html
We are all just people.
There is no satisfactory way around this basic fact.
Conduct elections online, and you open the process up to massive abuse where anonymity effectively become nullified.
For audits and recounts, computer forensics aren't nearly up to the abilities of traditional forensics. Physical ballots are why the Florida 2000 problems were so readily apparent.
Having computers print out physical (human-readable) ballots is fine. But trying to make an electronic "ballot" work anonymously is sheer stupidity.
ntl:telewest is now called Virgin Media after they bought the mobile phone division from Virgin.
"Oh boy"
All you have to do is look at any kind of digital security and you can see that we will never be able to trust online results.
I expect a higher than normal proportion of those who are online and taking an ntl survey would like online voting. I hardly see this as a fair sample.
One of the major reasons for a confidential voting process taking place in the voting booth is that it is difficult to intimidate the voter or make vote buying effective. As soon as the vote takes place elsewhere all kinds of influences become possible and almost impossible to detect or prevent.
Voting is supposed to be anonymous. Voting online can pinpoint you pretty easily. We cant have both anonymity and validation at the same time.
Its bad enough with the online banking exploits out there, and those are kept in-check because there's no anonymity and both the bankers and the customers can check their statements and trace all activities back to their account numbers.
I'll say it again: Computer voting is Stupid By Design.
http://www.vvk.ee/english/tarvi0303.ppt
Boss: Ok, everybody line up and earn your raises at this computer terminal!
Workers: Who are we voting for today?
Boss: Tony Blair!
Workers: We're telling!
Boss: In that case, you're fired!
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The biggest problem with the diebold machines is the lack of an auditable and voter-verified paper trail. How is it possible to have one with voting online? Either the voters have no way of making sure their vote was counted, or they are given a receipt which opens the door to vote buying and intimidation.
The only thing I can think of was a story here sometime ago which mentioned a design of a ballot which provided a voter verifiable receipt without revealing their vote, but I recall it being quite complicated and I don't know if it would work online.
Is there any way to implement online voting without making it unverifiable or allowing voter intimidation?
I stole this Sig
I am all for electronic voting as long as it is NOT networked, paper trail for audit, open source, on a machine that is a one trick pony. A voting machine does not have to cost thousands of dollars.
Still the biggest problem is people that are not qualified, uninformed, clueless to vote actually voting.
Remember to vote early and vote often.
1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
I see every day trojans that are able to manipulate your online banking, altering the amount transfered and the target account, all the while making it impossible for the user to even notice it if he doesn't know where to look (i.e. in the inner workings of his system).
How much more interesting would it be to change his vote cast to a party you deem more desirable than the one that he actually wanted to pick?
Democracy is too valuable a thing to hand it to a machine. Money, fine. Business, ok. But not politics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Now we will be able to shop, gamble and decide the fate of our own countries education and healthcare systems from the comfort of our fat sweaty arses.. Let me know when i can download fresh air and i'll never have to leave my house ever again.
God Be Gone
There's no way the current US administration would want younger people voting in greater percentages than they have to put up with now. It's too bad the slack jawed yokels can't figure out how to vote online too -- it'd at least even the two groups out!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Already solved in Estonia. You can vote as many times as you want online, only your latest vote count. So if someone peers over your shoulder making sure you vote right, you can just change your vote as soon as he's gone. Also, by going to the actual physical voting booth you can also override any online votes if all else fails.
Yes, they can make it secure on the receiving end. But they cannot secure the machine of the user. Banks have that problem already and they're losing money because of it (i.e. it's something that they care about), and they can't fix it either.
Why should politicians (you know, the guys with the tubes) have more success in securing something that doesn't really bother them too much?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just because somebody says they're more likely to vote online doesn't mean they want online voting.
It just means they admit there are times they might vote online when they wouldn't bother to go to the polls. It doesn't mean they think that online voting is better, or as good.
I've missed a couple elections over the last two decades. They were local elections for offices where I didn't think there was much difference between the candidates, and I was scheduled for business travel. It wasn't worth it to reschedule my trip or get an abstentee ballot. If we voted on line, I'd have voted remotely and I suppose I wouldn't have missed any elections.
So technically, this article would count me as ready to "embrace" online voting, even though I'd fight the idea tooth an nail if it ever came up. If it was the only way to vote, I'd vote that way. I might, over the course of my life, vote in a half dozen elections that I would otherwise have skipped because they weren't important for me. However, I'd never trust any election result again, including the ones that are important to me.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A strong argument often raised against open voting is that disinterested people would have their votes purchased. Given that in most jurisdictions turnout rarely goes over 60% there's a lot of scope for purchase. This would then lead to the richest 1% having say 80% influence (which may not be a bad thing).
It would show in the statistics that the majority doesn't think any of the candidates are fit for the office.
Presidental elections are mandatory here, and by custom the first thing the new president does is declare a general amnesty for all those who didn't come to vote. It would be a farce anyway.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
With all the interest in secure voting online, why not use all the lottery machines? All you'd have to do is reprint the paper sheets to match the election. Plus everyone that votes would be entered into a lottery to win a million $$$. Chris
How did they choose the sample? This is Telewest, let me guess it was done online, or via email?
Was the age group prechosen? Or did they select an age group that gave good results after taking the poll?
With what has happened in the USA, are they absolutely nuts?!!! There is no way to verify the vote if that is on line. I am canadian and I read that Ontario is floating a trial balloon about having an online vote. Electronicly assisted elections are just a way to yell, "STEAL ME!".
Yep, like a Republican guy's Democratic girlfriend watching him vote and promising him he'll get extra-sweaty sex later if he votes for this or that candidate. That same guy might stand up to intimidation or bribery, but how many guys can refuse that kinda offer?
May I say, as an Englishman who's opinions are pretty middle of the road and representative, we want no such thing.
This report is a concoction. Based on the evidence of what I've seen in the United States I have no faith in
electronic voting systems whatsoever.
I will absent myself from the country and use my legally ensured right to vote by post if necessary.
does anyone remember the Dr Who episode with the Slug thing, mandatory e-voting, and presidential elections with
execution of the president when he became unpopular, the companion was Peri I think ?
OK, so you have a web page that allows anyone to vote. Maybe you restrict it by IP address to a geographical location, as much as that is possible. No restriction in multiple voting.
If you are motivated enough, you can vote 100 times for the same candidate. So what? If you are really motivated or have enough funding, you can get 1000 people to enter votes for you. How is this different from the current situation where party hacks drive around picking up people to take them to the polling place today?
If the election is a complete bore and nobody is really interested, they get maybe 10 votes. Better than the 3 they get today.
If there is a lot of interest, people stay glued to their computers voting over and over again. The interest of those that are motived substitutes for the utter apathy of the majority that don't care. Vote totals go up and maybe next time some more people are interested.
Fraud? What is vote fraud in such an environment? Given there are maybe a million people that are really interested in the US out of 300 million people you would have votes counted in the low billions, assuming some sweatshop places chain people to computers instead of sewing machines. Any attempted fraud would be quickly overwhelmed by real votes coming in.
Popular candidates get lots of votes. Britney Spears (in the US) might end up as a Senator. It would be completely driven by popularity, net exposure and the motivation of people. How many votes does American Idol get vs. the number of people that voted in the last presidential election?
Combine this with a 3 month presidential term so there are lots of elections and we wouldn't have a voter apathy problem in the US. We might have David Duke as president for three months, but what could he do in three months? We might have President Natalie Portman, but again for only three months. The advantages of this would be incredible - a 24 hour cable channel dedicated to candidates, newsletters, stage performances, massive contests and the like all centered around the now-omnipresent election.
Sound silly? How about a country where 20-30% of the people vote and most of them aren't informed past making the "Republican" or "Democrat" mark on the ballot? How about a country where most of the actual people getting elected are unopposed? What would be so wrong with having the candidates sing and dance to get elected if it got 1/10th the interest there is in American Idol?
OTOH, maybe if you can't be bothered to learn how to use the internet then your vote shouldn't count?
There are many tasks that I could do in a 200m radius, but I still do online if I can. And it's not just a question of effort, it can be a question of time, security, convenience, maybe it's raining, etc.
One of my biggest gripes about elections is how simplified the issues have become, and how difficult it is to understand what each candidate *really* stands for.
IF they instituted online voting they could have drop down boxes for each candidate with summaries of opinions and hyperlinks to voting records, speeches... Hell, they could even link in the publically disclosed lists of contributors. I believe most voters don't have the time or inclination to do this sort of research on their own, but might be more inclined if the info was more easily accesible.
A voter could spend all the time they like reading about each candidate and issue on the ballot *while* casting their vote.
All it would take is some legislation and a bit of funding to amass the linked materials.
Political spin would have a reduced effect on anyone with enough motivation to click a couple of links.
Regards.
The insecurity of the client is possibly the biggest problem, but is solvable. The use of a pre-encrypted ballot (where each candidate / option in a contest is assigned a 4 digit code unique to the voter), ensures that a man-in-the-middle or trojan can't inspect the vote (it's a 4 digit number) or alter it (can't tell what to change it to). We're very keen to trial the system over here, which is what the pilots are all about, figuring out what people can and can't do / will and won't accept.
"If you unscrew Bill Gates' navel will the bottom fall out of the software market?"
It won't last, we'll be down to 2 by the next election.
I don't know if that completely solves it, but it comes close.
My only big concern is about people that are controlled more tightly than simple coercion - those in cults, under control of possessive spouses (some of whom are known to keep their partners essentially under lock and key without any unsupervised access to any communication devices), and the like.
As an additional safeguard, I think it's necessary that the voting system be structured in such a way that either only the voter knows the meaning of their ballot, or that only the voter knows whether or not they have recorded their ballot successfully.
A challenge/response step with a PIN might partially perform such a function - the PIN would constitute both the challenge, and the "signature" on the ballot, and the response you would receive back would be a sequence of numbers based on that PIN, such that some quick mental arithmetic could validate the response, but only if a certain secret were known.
In this way, so long as the PIN and secret were not compromised, the person could pretend to vote, and it would look like a successful vote each time. Certain values of the PIN and secret could also convey additional meanings, such as to covertly shut down the online voting account until the user appears in person before election officials to reset their PIN and secret.
I'm not sure how much additional security this gives against more sophisticated attacks - keyloggers and the like could still expose the PIN being used unless the PIN had to also be permuted. While I think the problem of maintaining a secret ballot can at least be partially solved in online elections, I'm not sure if the degree of assurance required can ever truly be met.
E-voting is the worst idea that ever had an e- in front of it. Just don't do it. If it were up to me, I would make voting even more manual and paper based. Do all the totaling manually with a pencil and let me check your work. Absolutely THE WRONG application of technology.
Now I know that there will be lots of geeks immediately thinking of technical feasibility and a system architecture seems to want to start drawing itself in my head too. But this is just one thing you never want to make "more efficient".
Why? Because YOU CANNOT TRUST GOVERNMENT. You simply cannot. The framers of the US constitution understood that concept very well (really the anti-federalists more so but whatever). We have documentation that is quite explicit on this point. It's not being patriotic to hand your power over to a faceless system that will naturally want to preserve itself; that's being idiotic. Liberty is something that needs to be guarded and protected very diligently because there will always be someone willing to take away if you let them and once that happens you may never get it back. The right and the left in the US never address the fact the the 2nd Amendment to the US Consistution (well regulated militia, bear arms) was not put there so citizens could protect themselves from break-ins, thieves or highwaymen. It is so they can protect themselves from the government.
Just leave this one alone. We can have all the conveniences in the world thanks to technology, but people will just have to deal with the tremendous inconvenience of getting off their asses and going out and manually voting sometimes.
Online voting would be great! But only if it was administered by a neutral third party. Like Switzerland. Or better yet, a Swiss bank.
In Canada we have an internet system called E-Pass you register off of based on your social insurance number and registered government address, they mail you a confirmation number and then you finish your registration in a few days. Once thats all settled you can file, adjust and view your tax returns, apply for all the various forms you can think of (birth certificates, passports) online and save all your information. It feels very secure, requires you to enter your password twice and use one that is 8-12 characters long including 1 capital and 2 numbers. I'd assume this would be easily scalable for online voting and that's something I'd really like to see put forward.
Then certain British voters a fools. Big fat stinking fools. Sorry to put it that way, but it true. This has security train wreck written all over it. But if they REALLY want to want to expose themselves to this, it is their call. Their call to have their vote stolen and manipulated that is.
One thing that must be noted is that voter intimidation must be a scalable process to be effective. Even if one or other particular voter could be intimidated by neighbors or relatives at home, it's much easier to do it wholesale when everybody has to go to a certain place to vote.
Let's say the local drug lord has spread the word that "for every vote for candidate X a random house will be burned down in the neighborhood". When voters get near the voting station they see young thuds flicking cigarette lighters. That would be a pretty effective way to get the message through, much less work than going from home to home, ringing the door, and asking "do you have a light?"
Here's what the survey actually says:
"Half of the kids who rarely vote say they'd probably vote if they could do so without getting off their fat asses, but two thirds of the people who actually vote say it's crap. Oh, and a trial run shows the lazy kids are full of crap anyway; when they can vote this way, they still don't."
Let people use email to request their absentee ballots; evoting, done. Next problem.
Hasn't this problem of online voting already been solved? Publicly traded companies use proxyvote for their annual meetins/directors/proposals. https://proxyvote.com/
....the majority of young people who voted online said they trust online voting.
"I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god."
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community'."
-- Adolf Hitler
It Seems Mr. Mouse pwnd the election, as all your vote servers are belong to us!!!1!!!11!!one one!!one.
NTL:Telewest are a cable company/ISP.
They're hardly likely to promote research which says "Actually, most people couldn't care less about voting online."
If you vote with buggy software you'll get a buggy president.
Privacy is terrorism.
The fundamental issue that I've never seen addressed concerns the security of the voter himself. Everyone is focused on encryption and security of the vote once it's been placed, but what I never see any discussion of is the following:
One major reason to have polling places is to attempt to guarantee a situation where a voter can go into a little room and cast his ballot without any threat and with deniability. There's nobody in the booth with him ensuring that he's voted the way he's been told or paid to vote.
Allowing people to vote from wherever they want MAY still grant anonymity, but we'll never be sure of the circumstances behind the vote. There could be a man with a gun or a checkbook watching the ballot being cast.
Even if all of the engineering and political challenges are overcome, this sort of voting has more fundamental issues that may not be solvable.
I don't think this is a good idea. I'm a big fan of simplification but I think this is a bad thing to simplify. And don't get me wrong I think more people need to vote but I think online voting would create a system where more peopled voted (the good) but more people who don't care about the system would vote (the bad). I think by forcing people to go to polling places they are showing that they do care and appreciate the system, I think if the online voting was allowed everyone would vote so we would get the 55% of regular voters who care enough to put some effort into the vote and then 45% of voters who are willing to give a vote as much time as it takes to /. headlines.
I personally think it is a horrible idea - I am in favor of paper ballots, with perhaps limited numbers of electronic booths for certain people who need them - handicaped etc... But I can't see how online voting will add much to the system. However, I don't think it's an idea that will die until there is at least one major disaster involving hacking, extreme corruption or something along those lines.
Millions of PC's have been compromised and are in botnets. To talk about using M$ PC's, and to a lesser extent even non-M$ PC's, for something as important as voting right now is insane.
It doesn't matter how "secure" the voting software is if it's run on an insecure PC. In many elections changing the vote by a few percent is all you need to get a new winner.
Odds on organized crime will get involved. Until botnets and significant PC compromise is a thing of the past internet voting is impossible.
---
Terrorism. The all-purpose excuse.
Unfortunately we can't trust our government to run large IT datbases securely. They just accidently published 7000 doctors personal details online including sexual preferances, ethnicity and addresses.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6597823.st m Why should the voting public expect any better?
I suspect this is heavily weighted considering the research agency is an internet-only one possibly with interest in online voting.
Voting from home is voting from an uncontrolled enviroment, where someone can watch what I type or what I have on the screen and I can't see how this problem can be solved by any technical means.
Let's say I want to force/pay 1000 people to vote for me. With online voting I can setup a private "voting office" and watch carefully if they really vote for me.
Or my boss can force me to vote for his favorite candidate for example. Someone can tell his whole family to vote what he wants to.
This is not possible with the current voting system, where I vote alone, in a secured area.
Online voting will make possible not only for the government or some powerfull people to track a vote, but for everyone who has some influence on the voter.
(Slightly off-topic, but on-line voting would certainly make this work a lot smoother.)
The first stage should be about defining the ticket - The general population votes to establish the most important issues (an incumbent should be able to disseminate information with his or her opinion about the matter before this vote occurs).
The second stage is about finding the individual best suited to hold the pre-defined position - A candidate then focuses on a campaign about how he or she will interpret the definition of the job and how he or she has the necessary experience.
Think about it like every couple of years, a contract job ends and a new one opens up. This is about government employment, is it not? Why not focus on employment-like things rather than popularity contest-like things? I think some kind of independent council can be formed to help ensure that these government employees meet their contracts.
Elections are once every few years. The polling station is 30 minutes walk or about three minutes drive. It's open from 7am-10pm. The physical process of voting is pretty easy. When I used to live up in the Midlands, it was maybe a ten minute walk to the polling station.
What needs to be fixed is I want someone I can vote for who isn't a self-aggrandizing, liberty-stomping, populist arsebag who will sell out my freedom for whatever trinkets of tabloid approval are currently in vogue. Much as I love the Internet, it is not likely to make our political leaders any less dishonest. They're all fucking useless shits regardless of whether my vote is delivered over dead-tree or TCP/IP.
Plus, I live in one of the most rigidly Conservative-voting constituencies in the country, so my vote is almost totally irrelevant. I'm not sure I'm going to be voting on Thursday.
catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
A colleague of mine is Australian and is now living half way around the world from his homeland. His local government elections are coming up(and the article mentioned focused on local government elections not Prime ministerial elections) and he is frustrated by the vote by post process and said he would be willing to vote online. I know a lot of the the respondents are thinking Bush v Gore but voting online can be a viable option for expatriates. The major issue of course is security but the majority of comments sounded like paranoia rather than genuine concerns.
End of line
The other problem is insecurity of the place; it doesn't matter how secure the transmission is if there's someone watching you cast your vote to make sure you voted for the right person; with a voting booth you can't vote unless you're alone and no one waiting outside knows whom you voted for.
Yours,
Elect Cthulu for world domination campaign - Why elect a lesser evil?
I really don't want to be governed by a party that people couldn't even be bothered to spend 10 minutes voting for. One advantage of the current system is that it explicitly disenfranchises anyone who doesn't care enough to vote.
Furthermore, the security/anonymity issues for e-voting are fatal. And it's not like the current system is even slightly broken: in the UK, you can vote from 8am-10pm, usually within 1/2 mile of your house, and never have to queue more than 5 minutes (usually not at all). Postal votes already cover the infirm/elderly/ex-pats.
If it runs on a computer, it can be hacked. If it can be hacked, it can and will be abused. This is an acceptable drawback for Slashdot polls, but elections have infinitely much more at stake.
When you finally realize these dissappointing realities about yourself, it will be hard for awhile. You might even need meds to get you through. I don't envy you....
Calling "nearly half of the younger respondents" = UK voters ?!?!
This is a bad idea, for many reasons.
For every reason that people oppose electronic voting, this is much worse. The machines aren't even visible to the voter, there is no paper trail at all. It's a black box, but there isn't even a box visible to the voter. You have no idea if your vote was counted correctly.
Securing the system will be very hard, with tons of people trying to hack it, and being able to do so anonymously and from anywhere in the world.
People will have to get some kind of password to vote, and will have to register, and at least the former can't be done on the internet. This eliminates the purpose of online voting. I guess you could send everyone a password, though.
It will open new doors for corruption. There will be no secret ballot at all, and selling your vote will be incredibly easy. As will voter coercion.
And last, it has no great benefit. If someone is too lazy and/or apathetic to go to the polls to vote, they don't need to be voting.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
well,it is rediculously...to vote online is not a bad thing in one side.some common vote as webvote can vote online as anonymous....for this the outcome of the vote is not very exactitute at some extent. but,it is not very important ...
however,if goverment vote online starts its way....how abou it?you guess?
in my opinion,vote online ib public is not pertinency...just as you know
you got to ask yourself what the fuck is wrong with the youth believing so called leaders that this shit is secure. you got to ask yourself how accurate is the poll they did. you got to ask yourself how are you going to validate an electronic "0" (low dc voltage) and an electronic "1" (high dc voltage) when humans can not physically see electricity in the first place. oh yeah, that's right cause i said so, so it must be. well fuck it, if this poll is true, which i doubt, then fuck you all, you do not deserve civil rights, or control of anything you fucking retards. you can have a nuclear holocaust after some psycho cracks your central tabulator, you can eat shit when your sick and you can go fuck yourself when your drafted into this bullshit oil war. but i wouldn't expect the uk to get it. the us don't get it because the media is corporate, so sell your fucking souls for the corporate bullshit and reap what you sow.
see you fuckers in burning fucking hell.
Error 404
Your vote is lost.
It can not be found.
It must not exist.
You don't have the right to vote.
This is akin to those "hack me" competitions. It's an open invite for all of the hackers/crackers around the world to concentrate all of their efforts on a single system! Think of the amount of knowledge we will gain about network security! Many of you have already started thinking of the feasibility of implementing a solution to pull this off, I for one am already thinking of how to hack it.
Rain , snow or sun, I have roughly 25-30 kilometer to do. And if I want to vote per corrrespondance, I have to get the special paper at the same place. Which make this quite useless.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
DRM is "defective by design", because it is designed to make defective anything it applies itself to. If anyone implements online voting, I'm sure they won't design it to be insecure, defective, or stupid (as someone mentioned earlier). Leave it alone!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Nobody can grab you out of the voting line for a long ride in a windowless van if you vote from a mobile phone.
Nevertheless, it's clearly impossible for one voting server running open source software and closely monitored by representatives of every major party to handle the load.
Man, I hate it how supercomputers are sooooo slow.
How do you stop Crazy Person A from locking up Person B for "safety" until the end of the election? Or threatening some kind of violence against Person B simply because they might have gone to a polling booth when Crazy Person A's attention was diverted?
Great! Xlnt! Brilliant! Perfection! Then slashdot hackers can create a truly 'democratic' virtual write-in / type-in candidature ballot bot - so I can run in every e-voting election and rig the elections as usual, globally, then not show up (like many politicians ... as usual), to then retire and live happily ever after on several government sponsored retirement packages all at once. Now that's what I call modern 'Community (er - Self-) Service'.
RR
PS. It took some serious doing to keep one's privacy and engineer a 'bad karma' profile.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."- C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
So will this be a new target for identity theft? Someone steals info on a given demographic in a certain region and sells it to one of the running parties for a price. The people who don't vote wouldn't have any idea, and the people who do vote would know because they either would not be allowed to change their vote, or they would at least see that they voted in the past.
Hopefully they find something to verify their identities properly.
I posted this here a while back about another trial, but they already found massive coercion and voter fraud in the mail-in elections here.
1. Go to relatives house
2. Hold gun to their head and insist that they vote for who you tell them to
3. Watch them cast the vote
4. Tell them that you will kill them and their pet rabbit if they tell anyone
5. Win the election
Sadly, that is a problem that will always exist if people aren't voting in a private cubicle in a public place.
After the recent postal voting in the UK, it was found that many heads of families coerced the rest of the family into voting a certain way. That just can't happen in a private cubicle where you can always lie to dad later, but vote for who you want to now.
Then soon after that is allowed they will be downloading a bot to their machines that automatically votes for them. Lazy beeps!
there's no protection of anonymity?
I think this would work best in the UK: just bet on which of the two parties wins the election, no nasty voting anymore, just going to your local betting office and placing a bet.
"But yes sir, labour is 3:300000 today, you could win a lot of money if they would win !"
Great stuff, no democracy, typically british !
Broadband supplier (or should I say seller) shows we all want to vote online. This tells us:
(a) we all want to vote online, or
(b) NTL have found a new sales pitch
Place your votes now.
... is against the spirit of true democracy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Vote is secret in any half assed democracy in order to avoid any kind of cohercion.
Take away secrecy and you would see all kind of external pressure (family, friends, unions, companies, the state, the police, religious organizations) applied to people to ensure they vote the correct way.
Honestly, why don't you think before writting?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are monumentally politically incompetent.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am officially calling the next Prime Minister election for Stephen Colbert.
Tell me when this change takes effect in the UK. I look forward to hearing about M.P. CowboyNeal.
Will online voting mean we will get leaders that believe that 9/11 was an inside job and Microsoft should be destroyed?
Creative Demolition
Voting anywhere but a carefully observed polling place is bad news. It would be all too easy to sell votes if someone could look over your shoulder or receive a print-screen of your picks. Currently it is (assumed to be) difficult for anyone to verify for whom someone voted, therefore anyone selling votes can easily lie. No one will buy many votes when they can't be sure of what they're buying. Online voting: Bad.
I doubt that the time for online voting has arrived because it is very vulnerable to fraud because any hacker can hack into the system and manipulate the voter result. Mscsrrr, http://www.maychic.com/cbag/bad_credit_loans.htm