Slashdot Mirror


Canada Considering Online Voting In Elections

ehud42 writes "Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad idea. Well, what about online voting? That is what the Vancouver Sun is reporting. Given that voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record, Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online, update registration information online, and maybe even vote online."

3 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Votes can be coerced with guns. by kabloom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In any election that lets people vote from anywhere, votes can be coerced with a gun, and people can show their actual vote to whatever corrupt mafioso wants to force their vote. These things are not possible (or at least they're more difficult) if the only places to vote are properly run, properly secure polling places.

  2. Re:Stick em up! Your money or your candidate. by belmolis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The ATM company and the voting machine company are effectively different companies. Diebold, which makes ATMs, bought a company called Global Election Systems in 2001. GES is the company that makes voting machines. Although GES is now owned by Diebold, it remains a separate division, with its own management and engineers. The technology is GES technology. It is true that if Diebold wanted to badly enough they could impose changes on the voting machine division, but it can be hard even for an honest company to bring itself to crack down on a sleazy subsidiary, very likely at the cost of damaging the market for the subsidiary and increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.

  3. Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that not voting is not a protest against having bad candidates, not voting is simply saying you guys (i.e the rest of the electorate) go ahead and pick someone, I'll go with whoever you pick. There must have been one that is at least slightly less bad than the others, and that's the one you should be voting for.

    That does assume that you at least have a good idea who the candidates are and what policies they represent. I'd be in favor of making voting harder, such as you have to write in a name of the candidate you are voting for or something like that, and write an essay on why you are voting for them (just kidding about the essay...). If you can't write your candidate's name then you're not fit to vote. What purpose is served by people voting by checking a random box cause they have no clue about any of the candidates anyway and they are just voting because you are "supposed to", or maybe voting for one whose name seems a bit more familiar than the others. I bet a lot more people do than than we think, or dare admit.

    In any case, I do agree with your point that making voting slightly easier will not make much difference and its not worth the risk. It won't be that much easier anyway, you still have to register online and deal with remembering passwords and dozen authentication questions and all that.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.