Slashdot Mirror
Using the Internet To Subvert Democracy
david_adams writes "All the recent talk about various polls and elections being pranked or hijacked, serious and silly alike, prompted me to write an article about the technical realities behind online polling, and the political fallout of ever becoming subject to online voting for serious elections. Even if we were to be able to limit voting to legitimate, legal voters, the realities of social networking and the rise of Internet-based movements would dramatically alter the political landscape if online voting were to become commonplace."
Stupid article - a transparent attempt to get his friend a new bicycle. I strongly urge everyone to go to the Kona website and vote for the Tanuki (if you don't understand why, RTFA).
Oh, and TFA states: That's why no country practices direct democracy. Wrong
My pics.
Computers have no practical place in elections unless there is a paper trail to verify the count. They just cause more confusion than hanging chads.
The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
Changing democratic preferences is not a subversion of democracy. Many would argue it would make for a more robust democracy.
Ron Paul!
(This is referring to how Ron Paul supporters would in the year leading up to the election, for lack of a better term, "flash mob" any online poll that had Ron Paul as a choice and spam votes for Ron Paul. It didn't really matter what the poll was, it could have been "Who would you like to see devoured by a pack of dingos?", as long as Ron Paul was an option they'd be there spamming for him.)
Democracy is the force of the majority over the minority. It doesn't matter if you have elections or not.. that's just a formality.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Even if you could transport that vote 100% of the time securely and accurately you still have a huge problem. The problem with any system where you can vote in plain sight of other people will lead to all sorts of complications. Mainly the creation of a new market, the votes market. People will probably buy votes. Even if its not enough to change an election it is still going to be considered far more important to ensure this isn't happening than to let people vote from home.
So maybe we can transport a vote safely, but without some way to make sure that a vote is a 'real' vote and not a product of bribery or criminal behavior is still in question.
I program computers for a living. They are an excellent tool for a lot of things. Totally electronic voting (whether at a polling place or over the Internet) is not a good use for that tool.
Here is a user interface. Push some buttons on it. It is going to send some data somewhere. Did it send the data you thought it would? Did it send it at all? If so, was it properly received at the other end? How would you know? Even if the UI tells you so, it could be saying so incorrectly, by either accident or malice.
Here is a piece of paper with readable language on it. Are the dots in the columns where you wanted your votes to be cast? You can answer that.
Here is a data file with a million entries in it. 35% of those entries are for value A. Change that to 60% with little to no evidence anything was changed. A well-designed script can do that in a blink.
Here are one million pieces of paper, 35% of which are (marked in ink or with punches) for value A. Change that to 60% with little to no evidence any changes were made. Now you've got a laborious and intensive process ahead of you, that aside from the fact that the papers are watched and you are very likely to leave evidence of tampering.
Recognizing a technology's legitimate limitations does not a Luddite make. The Internet is great for informal polls. It is not a good tool for serious ones such as an election where the results must be accurate and verifiable.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Computer based voting can never be secured to the same point as paper based voting. For a very simple reason: Trust. You would have to trust someone.
Paper has one key feature that a computer can never reach: Anyone literate can use it and verify it. You can read, or at least tell left from right and someone tells you left is Party A and right is Party B, you can recount. Also, should someone try to mess with the ballot, anyone with normal working senses can be a bystander to ensure this won't happen. You can see that someone opens the ballot, a simple (but very, very special) paper slip glued to the lock (aka a seal) can already show whether someone tampered with it.
With computers, you first of all have to trust the maker of the election hardware and software, or at least you have to trust all the auditors, first that they did their job right and second that they're not "in" with the makers. You, Joe Average, cannot test the reliability of the setup. You're no computer expert. And if you are, and even if you're giving the chance to audit the software, you know that you simply cannot ensure to 100% that every single vote will be counted the way it is supposed to be. With paper, no problem. Take the votes and start counting. Anyone can do it.
Tamper proof... is it? I can't tell if the ballot has been opened, I cannot tell whether someone will see who voted which way. Can you? Can Joe?
No matter how you twist and turn it, computer elections cannot be made reliable to the same extent we have today with paper ballots.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Describing this for the UK but it can be adapted for anywhere.
After the election which took place as normal. Every member of parliament gets a vote that is proportionate to the number of constituents that are eligible to vote.
Everyone who is eligible to vote can change who represents them to any of the sitting MPs, once every 3 moths or so. This takes a vote away from their MP and gives it to the MP they want to have it. (Suggest that libraries are used for this purpose).
This process has the following effects.
1. It does not disenfranchise those who don't want to do more than they already do.
2. It maintains an element of local representation.
3. It makes MPs do what they say they will do, because if they don't people will stop supporting them a lot more quickly.
4. It allows for a far greater degree of representation. Out of the several hundred sitting MPs it is likely that at least one will closely represent your views.
"[all emphasis mine]
Yes!1 Yes!1 Abso-fscking-lutely!1!
Let's put EVERY-FSCKING-THING that determines/influences our political process online!...ASAP!
The only realistic questions become then are:
1. "Should we concentrate on learning Russian, Chinese, or both?" (least pessimistic scenario)
2. Will 'Twitter' take over Congress, and sentient life?(do not confuse the two to your detriment)
3. ???
4.Profit!!!**
What could possibly go wrong???? (Hint: I am learning Russian)
** Can I still post on /. if I voted for CowboyNeal?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
They already made a movie of it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Federalist #10 explores how true democracy would be susceptible to faction: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm. The "founding fathers" were very concerned about how easily swayed the common people are; in fact "mob" comes from "mobile vulgaris," the movable herd. I think Nietzsche's considerations on class resentment apply here too. Think about the true but disturbing populist movements like the French Revolution, the Stalinist and Maoist revolutions and so on. They're nasty things. Populism can become ugly quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9Jm9SqvY