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? "
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.
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.
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.
If you reduce all parties to a single binary choice (Left or right), you'll fail no matter how you vote, and no matter how many choices you have.
It's been a long time.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.