States Using Cloud Based Voting System For Overseas Citizens

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

States Using Cloud Based Voting System For Overseas Citizens

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 25, 2012 @05:49AM from the making-diebold-machines-seem-like-a-good-idea dept.

gManZboy writes "If a ballot was lost in the cloud, would anyone know? Several states are using an online balloting website based on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform to allow U.S. voters living overseas to cast their votes via the Web in 2012 primary elections. In addition to a now complete Florida primary, Virginia and California will use the system for their primaries, and Washington state will use it for its caucus. To ensure the ballots are from legitimate voters, people use unique identifying information to access their ballots online, according to Microsoft. Once received, the signature on the ballot is matched with registration records to further verify identity."

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why? by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-01-25 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).
1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  It kind of makes sense for this because overseas voting is vulnerable anyway, and primaries aren't real government elections (they only really matter to the party). I would still resist paper-free voting machines for real elections.
2. Re:Why? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-01-25 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Because 1). People treat voting counting as a basic data collection and management problem, rather than something with particular significance.
  
  2). Because of 1) they go shopping for a commodity "IT Solution". Unfortunately, humans (on average) are barely better than insentient objects at choosing a "Solution" that isn't a raging clusterfuck(even in those situations where there is such a solution).
  
  3). Because of 2), somebody is left with an onrushing deadline and a pile of shit, and has to make everything appear to go more or less smoothly on time, working with whatever they have.
  
  There certainly is reason to be substantially more suspicious of electoral matters, given what's at stake; but organizations of all types routinely build horribly maladjusted systems for all sorts of purposes, so it isn't a huge surprise...
3. Re:Why? by TheLink · 2012-01-25 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In many countries the voters are unhappy when the vote counting is done behind closed doors- they know something fishy is going on (whether they can do anything about it is another matter).
  One important requirement for a voting system is convincing enough of the losers that they've lost.
  So even if you have an electronic voting system that actually works properly[1], you need to convince the voters that it works properly.
  Of course if most of the voters don't care that much then it doesn't matter.
  [1] There are some electronic systems which seem like they might work properly and be verifiable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s
  But can you convince enough voters of that?
  That said usually the people running/rigging the elections would prefer to use other methods instead ;).
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
4. Re:Why? by jeffmeden · 2012-01-25 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).
  Because they decided it was a good idea to replace one expensive vulnerable system with one slightly less expensive vulnerable system? I imagine it's time for a scorecard for e-voting (like the one for "fixing" spam) that starts with "It looks like you are proposing a replacement to the paper ballot. Your idea is bad for the following reasons..."
  I imagine a similar fear must have sank in to the board members of the first pair of banks that decided to start electronically trading transactions with each other... "You mean someone could just like, hit a button, and the money could be *gone*?" And somehow here we are, all still alive and well despite, apparently, the ability for money to be stolen at will by anyone at any time because the worldwide banking system is almost entirely operated electronically and over the interwebs.
5. Re:Why? by mr1911 · 2012-01-25 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why do electoral commissions, or the local alternative, keep attempting to bring in voting systems that have been proven to be vulnerable? (Conspiracy theories aside).
  Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  This applies to all voting mechanisms... electronic voting, mail-in voting, in-person voting.
  It's just a matter of time before we get to biometric voting... probably a combination of DNA, fingerprints, facial recognition and/or retina scanning.
7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Great! In Amerika we've gone the other way so that issue is moot.
  You see, we've developed a system where we take two identical candidates and blow them up until every possible microscopic difference is visible and then we convince voters that those differences matter. Then, after the election, we shrink them back down and show everyone how similar they really are. Everyone from the losing 'side' gets to blame the winning 'side' for everything bad until the next 'election'. It's great fun but not much of a way to run a country.
8. Re:Why? by DeathFromSomewhere · 2012-01-25 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Every voting system is vulnerable. It's more a question of how easy and how much a system can be exploited.
  
  --
  -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
9. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-01-25 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.
  Well, you could probably require some sort of picture ID before allowing someone to vote.
  But that idea has been deemed to be reactionary and evil, so I guess the dead will continue to vote at the usual rate (which really isn't all that high).
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
10. Re:Why? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-25 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  You are thinking too deeply about this problem.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
11. Re:Why? by Pope · 2012-01-25 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  In most places in Canada at least, we need Photo ID to match the voters' list, and the postcard that the election team sends out that has our name, address, and voting location. Of course every ballot I've cast has been with a paper and pencil and the results are tabulated fairly quickly.
  The biggest issues I've seen with the US federal ballots are that local races are including on the same one that you're using to vote for your Rep, Senator and President. Separating these out would make things so much easier to deal with IMO.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
12. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-01-25 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  In most places in Canada at least, we need Photo ID to match the voters' list,
  Alas, in the USA, requiring that sort of thing is considered "racist", and therefore reactionary and evil.
  Every State that has proposed such laws has been sued to prevent implementation of same.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  You mean because mailing your absentee ballot from China isn't vulnerable?
14. Re:Why? by TheLink · 2012-01-25 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  There are often more than two candidates. But if two candidates combined get more than 98% of the votes, it just sends a message that those two combined are satisfying most of the voters who actually bother to vote, as much as possible, given the differences in what the voters want, and their priorities.
  
  If the voters wish to send a different message, they should vote differently. Even if the other candidates do not win, if a 3rd candidate gets 30% of the votes, the "popular 2" candidates may consider changing stuff to win more votes (because the next round, the 3rd candidate might actually win if enough voters start to think the 3rd candidate might actually be a least bad and viable option).
  
  If the voters are trying to game or "game theory" the system, and are regularly not satisfied with the results then they are doing it wrong.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
15. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why it's considered racist is that the only reason there's any interest in using such a card is to prevent the poor and those of color from participating.
  But, more importantly, it's not a problem. The GOP continually makes a big deal out of voter fraud, but the reality is that the voter fraud that exists is rare. Only a handful of people are prosecuted in any given year.
  The reality here is that you have to balance the security of votes cast with the right of people to vote. Now in the future if voter fraud becomes a problem and there's some evidence to suggest that people are voting under an assumed name, then we can start worrying about that. Until then this is just a cynical attempt by the GOP to institute a poll tax for political gain.
16. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's precisely my problem for the next year. I don't believe that the Chinese authorities or the US customs officers are going to be opening my ballots, but they could and even if they don't the ballots could be lost in the mail. I'd rate the risk of the ballot being lost as much more significant than government tampering.
  There's also the issue of post mark. It's going to be a minimum of 6 weeks between when they mail me my ballot and when they receive the completed ballot and that's going to make it quite tight. Unfortunately in order for it to be accepted it has to either be postmarked by the USPS by election night or it has to be received. I'm going to have to read up a bit more to confirm, but I don't like the idea of being disenfranchised in this way.
17. Re:Why? by iluvcapra · 2012-01-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Reasoning: Because, at the maximum ever recorded in a modern election, about 100 people or about .005% of voters in an election are convicted of casting fraudulent ballots, we should keep about 11% of people who are entitled to cast a vote from making one.
  And we aren't even getting into why we always hold our elections on work days...
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
18. Re:Why? by mr1911 · 2012-01-25 07:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  but the reality is that the voter fraud that exists is rare. Only a handful of people are prosecuted in any given year.
  Your second statement is not proof that voter fraud is rare. It merely supports that only a handful of people are prosecuted.
  
  Speeding tickets are rare in comparison to the number of drivers speeding. Does that mean they were not actually speeding? Or does it show that there are not enough resources to catch each violation.
  
  Your statement could be true because fraud is rare. It could also be that prosecutors do not want to prosecute or are dissuaded from prosecuting more instances. It could be that the system is so weak producing evidence of the fraud is difficult.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
19. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Those states that have been sued for requiring a photo ID typically charge for that ID or documents that are required to get said ID (birth certificates.) If you are being charged for something so you can vote then it is a poll tax. Poll taxes are not racist per say, but they are meant to keep the impoverished, poor, those on a fixed income and those who have difficulty in getting out from voting. The groups that poll taxes usually effect are minority groups, youth and seniors. That is why the photo ID stuff is not so good unless you give them away for free. The groups targeted are largely Democratic voters...so these laws are ++GOOD for the Republicans.
  The system works fairly well without photo ID...you go down to the polling office, you give your name...they find you on the list...you sign...you vote. If you show up and your name has already been signed for there is a problem.
  If you want to have some form of ID, how about a piece of mail (Bill of some type is best), a credit card, Student ID/report card, etc. None have pictures, but most will not part with them willingly and they are cross-checked by the list at the poll.
20. Re:Why? by lgarner · 2012-01-25 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  In item 1, I assume you meant either "vote counting" or "voting", but sadly you're correct either way.
21. Re:Why? by timeOday · 2012-01-25 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Alas, in the USA, requiring that sort of thing is considered "racist"
  My, how times have changed. I remember when suggesting a compulsory national ID card would have sent conservatives running for their firearms.
22. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof is on the people who are claiming that there's massive voter fraud. It isn't up to me to prove that it isn't common. And ultimately the bar is set fairly high because people do have a legal right to vote after they turn 18 unless they have had their rights taken away.
23. Re:Why? by bondsbw · 2012-01-25 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  I have to disagree. The burden of proof should be on those who claim the system is legitimate and free from corruption. They are the ones asking the populous to trust that the system is fair.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
24. Re:Why? by Talderas · 2012-01-25 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  What's strange is that Indiana requires a photo ID and it's fine and dandy.
  South Carolina requires it and the US Justice Department strikes it down.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
25. Re:Why? by losfromla · 2012-01-25 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to disagree, it appears though that you wanted to. I think though that you are asking for something to be proven which wholly impractical to prove without massive changes to the system. To illustrate, can you give a somewhat complete description of what proof would be required for you ( a presumed nonbeliever in the legitimacy and incorruptibility of the system) to be convinced?
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
26. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, the burden of proof is on the people claiming the positive result. You can never prove that there is no corruption, at best you can fail to find any. OTOH, if there really is a serious issue with voter fraud then it should be trivial to find.
  You have to balance the rights of the people to vote with the need to enforce the rules. In the absence of any evidence that voter fraud is a problem there needs to be justification for changes to be made.
27. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Indiana doesn't have a history of slavery and voter suppression that I'm aware of. There's a reason why South Carolina and those other Southern states are under closer scrutiny.
  Around here we were segregated until the mid '70s as far as the schools go, but opted to voluntarily desegregate and as such we have more freedom than places like MO that had to be forced to desegregate.
28. Re:Why? by losfromla · 2012-01-25 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not to be too rough or anything, but if you don't like the burden of living abroad, then, don't live abroad. I am also not too kind because I don't imagine you'll be living in China to help improve the industrial base of the US. I know, not your job, but, every little bit counts. You probably don't agree, which makes it not too relevant whether you vote or not...
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
29. Re:Why? by Shifty0x88 · 2012-01-25 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Once received, the signature on the ballot is matched with registration records to further verify identity."
  This would only work in fax or mail-in ballots, unless you can use your mouse to "write" your signature which may or may not look like your actually handwritten signature.
  But that aside, I am still not convinced the paper ballots work: Florida re-count anyone?!?!
  So you may need to prove it works, but even then there can be some errors... and the system as a whole still "works"
30. Re:Why? by RobertinXinyang · 2012-01-25 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Precisely my problem too. The first thing to decide is which Vulnerability bothers me the most. The first thing to realize is that this is China; as such, privacy is not a real concept and is definitely not thought of in a positive sense.
  My choices are to mail my ballot, understanding that it is not possible to mail a sealed envelope. The postal people will seal the envelop after they have examined it and its contents. The other option is to fax the ballot. If it is faxed, it must be faxed from the police station (Public Security Bureau), Immigration division. They will also need a copy of my ballot to place in my permanent file.
  So, no matter what, privacy is out of the question. The next issue is in the mechanics of voting. I have been here several years and I have never gotten my election materials more than two days before the end of the voting period. So, rather obviously, I have not voted. However, that is how I found out about the rules regarding faxing my ballot (I didn't realize that I needed file copies before going to PSB to fax my ballot and there wasn't enough time to go to a copy place to get copies before PSB closed).
  As an experiment, my County Clerk once sent me a post card just to see how long it would take to get it to me. I got the post card over four months after it had originally been postmarked.
  Much of the world is not like The West. In some places it is viewed with suspicion. It is also viewed more as a political activity than as a civic activity.
31. Re:Why? by strikeleader · 2012-01-25 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Is there a voting system that isn't vulnerable? Having people show up in person to vote has shown ineffective at keeping the dead from casting a ballot.
  It is not only the dead but also the illegal's. But how else is a Democrat suppose to get elected.
32. Re:Why? by pillbug88 · 2012-01-25 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  it will be hacked, i don't see any other outcome.
33. Re:Why? by The+Mister+Purple · 2012-01-25 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  And we aren't even getting into why we always hold our elections on work days...
  It's to make sure the retirees can outvote the working poor, right?
  
  --
  "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
34. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is that as long as I'm a US citizen I have the right to vote. And the government is obliged to provide a reasonable method of doing so. As technology improves the options improve. At this point there's no reason why it needs to be a PITA at all.
  That being said, I'm not helping their industrial base. I'm teaching them English in a rural area. The connection between those students and our competition is about as indirect as you can get. Ultimately without the ability to speak English they're cut off from a good number of news sources which would otherwise be available even in China.
  Ultimately, if we allow morals to enter into the equation it represents a great shift back to the way things were at the beginning of the 20th century when certain folks weren't allowed to vote for what probably seemed like reasonable moral reasons.
35. Re:Why? by hedwards · 2012-01-25 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  You'll probably have to mail it either way. Around here I can fax it to the state, but I have to furnish an original copy by the date the vote is certified generally between 2 and 3 weeks later.
36. Re:Why? by losfromla · 2012-01-25 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you regarding access to voting and it not needing to be a PITA.
  I disagree that them learning English is as far from our competition as we can get. Right now, I can't compete for telemarketing jobs in China, or copy editor, or news writer in Mandarin mainly because of the language barrier. Remove that and suddenly several billion Chinese are afraid for their editorial type jobs.
  I wasn't advocating a moral filter, just pointing out that if you argue that one person helping Chinese be more competitive (I was actually thinking of you more as a corporate drone) doesn't make a difference, then neither does your vote.
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
37. Re:Why? by icebike · 2012-01-25 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Reason 0 to add to your list is embodied in the first sentence of the posted summary:
  
  Several states are using an online balloting website based on Microsoft's Azure cloud-computing platform to allow U.S. voters living overseas to cast their votes via the Web in 2012 primary elections.
  Other than the deployed military or remotely stationed government employees, anyone choosing to live overseas has pretty much given up their right to vote and entrusted the running of the country to their fellow countrymen if you ask me. (Yes, I realize you didn't ask me).
  The idea that every person, where ever they are, regardless of how inconvenient or expensive they have made it for themselves to vote must be given the opportunity to vote is something never conceived of by the founding fathers. You made your self unavailable.
  Military and Government and corporate employers have the means to schlep absentee ballots all over the world, or use regular mail.
  But why should the government choose to expend untold millions to gather the vote people who choose to live elsewhere? Especially when "elsewhere" is outside of the US jurisdiction.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
38. Re:Why? by icebike · 2012-01-25 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of proof should be on those who claim the system is legitimate and free from corruption. They are the ones asking the populous to trust that the system is fair.
  THIS!.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
39. Re:Why? by icebike · 2012-01-25 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Those states that have been sued for requiring a photo ID typically charge for that ID or documents that are required to get said ID (birth certificates.) If you are being charged for something so you can vote then it is a poll tax. Poll taxes are not racist per say, but they are meant to keep the impoverished, poor, those on a fixed income and those who have difficulty in getting out from voting.
  
  Sorry, but you are simply wrong about that.
  Photo ID has been consistently fought to the death by the Democrat party EVEN when there was no fees, EVEN when outreach programs and exceptions were made for elderly or infirm.
  The democrats will simply not allow photo ID because their organized vans that shuffle voters from polling place to polling place would be ineffective. In those jurisdictions that vote by mail this practice has effectively been shut down. Its about the only good thing that vote by mail has accomplished.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
40. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  I can't tell you I cringe when I hear people clamoring for on-line voting...and it's starting to seem like everyone is. On-line voting will NEVER be any more secure than the client...meaning it isn't. How do people not get that?
41. Re:Why? by Kalriath · 2012-01-25 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  Well, your government believes it has the right to exercise its authority anywhere on the planet, and has been caught writing laws for other countries (when it doesn't outright invade them) so in all fairness, the entire planet should get to vote in US elections.
  Slight tongue in cheek aside - these people [US citizens living overseas] are still under the jurisdiction of your government, and still pay taxes (my understanding is for US citizens, federal taxes are based on worldwide income?) so why shouldn't they get input into the election process? I thought taxation without representation was the antithesis of what the US was all about?
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  So say, for example, someone working overseas 6 month period (still employed by an american employer) should have no right to vote?
  What the found fathers conceived is irrelevant, something tells me they didn't conceive travelling to the other side of the world in less than 24 hours either.
  (I'm Swedish, was studying in Australia for 6 months during the Swedish election, and was quite happy to be able to vote.)
43. Re:Why? by slick7 · 2012-01-25 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  it will be hacked, i don't see any other outcome.
  Don't let that stop the continued steamrolling of American citizens.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
44. Re:Why? by hguorbray · 2012-01-25 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the bigger problem is with disenfranchising voters, and is (mostly) done by the Rethuglicans
  
  From actively discouraging registered voters by only allowing college students to vote in their home town, threatening to check voters for anything from immigration status (how could they vote w/o being citizens?) to outstanding warrants
  
  to invalidating registrations or votes for various reasons:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drak3NcRpJc
  
  -I'm just sayin'
45. Re:Why? by im_thatoneguy · 2012-01-25 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  Because these are primaries and waiting a week to a month for absentee voters to weigh in simply is too long since the race could be over by then.
46. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-01-25 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  My, how times have changed. I remember when suggesting a compulsory national ID card would have sent conservatives running for their firearms.
  Alas, I'm not a conservative.
  Nor are we talking about a national ID card. Driver's Licenses, which qualify in every State considering the notion, aren't national. And even if you don't need a driver's license, the DMV will issue you a picture ID in every State I've ever lived in.
  Plus there's the University ID, which counts. Military ID. Lots of ways to come up with ID that don't involve a compulsory national ID.
  That said, note that I wasn't arguing in favour of ID cards to vote. I was just pointing out that requiring the same sort of identification that many countries (Canada, as an example) already require is considered "racist" here.
  Oddly, it's not considered "racist" by the Canadians....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
47. Re:Why? by geezer+nerd · 2012-01-25 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  Good grief! What a load of bollocks this person is spewing.
  
  I am one of these US citizens living abroad, and I very much appreciate that the STATE governments of the US enable me to continue to vote. As a citizen, I certainly have that right. And as a US citizen, I have a continuing obligation to pay taxes on my worldwide income to the US government AND to the government where I live, and I do so gladly.
  
  This new technology use will likely make the process go more smoothly, and lessen the likelihood that a paper ballot may miss deadlines in the mail. I last lived in California in the US, so I vote in California. When I lived there, I requested absentee ballots for every election because I never knew if I would be present on election day itself. For voting internationally, they use exactly the same absentee ballot process, and send the ballots by ordinary mail. It is neither a big cost item nor can I imagine it being a terribly labor-intensive effort.
  
  I have chosen to live elsewhere, but that makes me no less a patriotic citizen!
48. Re:Why? by geezer+nerd · 2012-01-25 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  As I read the TFA, this is NOT an instance of a new online voting system. Apparently is only a new mechanism for providing ballots to overseas voters. The ballot form will be online, and has to be downloaded, marked, and returned in the mail. The ballot has to be signed, and the voting authorities will check signatures against registration lists. Mainly, this is an attempt to eliminate the uncertainty of mail delivery times on one side of the transaction.
  
  Again, according to my reading of the TFA there will be some authentication process on the front end to allow only registered voters to get ballots. I don't see any huge risk here.
49. Re:Why? by QQBoss · 2012-01-25 14:12 · Score: 1
  
  People who live overseas are not only subject to taxation in the country of residence, but in the USA, as well, even if 100% of the income is earned in the foreign country. The USA is the only country, IIRC, that taxes its citizens in such a way. Add to that the currently insane banking reporting requirements (not worth going into the details here), for which not reporting can cost you a minimum $10,000 fine + a 20% penalty based on the highest balance. Take away those taxation and penalty issues and I bet many people with foreign residency would happily give up their right to vote. Until then, screw your opinion.
  While the military has the ability to schlep ballots, it is the USPS job to do so, not the military. We already spend significant amounts of money (though probably not in the millions, I wonder if anyone has ever counted it) schlepping paper ballots to military bases all around the world. We would be trading an expense we already absorb for a one time upfront cost with hopefully much lower ongoing expense. Given how many instances of paper ballots arriving late or being returned late and not being counted, even if the voting was done on time, you do our military personnel a disservice by disenfranchising them.
  On top of that, it is not an employer's responsibility to forward ballots to an employee, it is the governments. There was a time when I could be overseas working for 3 months at a time, a different city each week (which might not be known until the week beforehand). I left too early to do anything absentee, I came back to late to vote, and no way anything but Fed-Ex could catch up to me (which would cost far more if done for everyone than a cloud system should cost). While choosing that form of employment made me unavailable, a system like this could allow me to be as available as anyone else. I am just one person, I wouldn't expect a system like this to be set up for me, but I would have gladly piggybacked on a system which would have allowed my one vote to be cast and counted.
  Finally, while the money that would be spent to develop such a system would be a one time charge that would hopefully be amortized over many elections, I have to admit based on past experience I have great difficulty trusting that the US govt. could implement such a system without it becoming a fiasco of fraud on both the monetary side and the use or abuse of such a system in the counting of votes. That probably trumps all else.
50. Re:Why? by icebike · 2012-01-25 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  The USA is the only country, IIRC, that taxes its citizens in such a way.
  Wrong.
  Canada, UK, Germany and most of the EU tax foreign income. There are exemptions for tax paid in foreign countries.
  In the US there is an $87,000 exemption off the top, and an exemption for taxes paid to foreign government.
  http://www.groco.com/readingroom/intl_foreign_income.aspx
  
  While the military has the ability to schlep ballots, it is the USPS job to do so, not the military.
  Wrong again.
  The US postal system does not deliver to Military ships at sea or combat zones or US Bases overseas.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_mail
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
51. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  Please welcome next President of the United States, Moot. and Vice President Marblecake!
52. Re:Why? by muckracer · 2012-01-26 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  > Well, your government believes it has the right to exercise its
  > authority anywhere on the planet, and has been caught writing laws
  > for other countries (when it doesn't outright invade them) so in all
  > fairness, the entire planet should get to vote in US elections.
  Kinda like: "No occupation without representation"? :-)
53. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-26 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong. Those countries tax the worldwide income of people who LIVE there, regardless of citizenship. They do not tax their citizens who live abroad.
  An American in the UK needs to pay full UK taxes and US taxes on worldwide income (with the exemptions for US tax that you mention). UK taxes on US income may be reduced if the US taxes it first (this depends on the filing dates).
  A Brit in the US needs to pay US taxes only, unless he earns income from inside the UK (such as interest on bank accounts or investments, not if he is paid by a UK company while living in the US), or is only in the US temporarily (and returns to the UK within 2 tax years, or is in the UK for 91 days a tax year and returns in 4 years, or is in the UK for 183 days in a tax year).
  Apart from the US, the Philippines apparently taxes all its citizens wherever they live.
  Also, if you owe the IRS money, you won't be able to give up your American citizenship. There is an exit tax as well. So if you're American and want to evade your taxes, you need to renew your passport, and never enter the US again, and then you have 10 years to get another citizenship.
54. Re:Why? by geezer+nerd · 2012-01-26 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The first article (from Microsoft) says: "While traditional absentee ballots rely on the postal system, LiveBallot gives voters immediate access to a ballot that they can mark online or on paper and return via mail or fax, depending on state election laws."
  
  The second article (from InformationWeek) says: "The system allows voters registered to vote in primaries who live overseas to have access to ballots 45 days before the election. From that time until the election, they can cast their ballot electronically, or print out the ballot and mail it or fax it, depending on the state's election rules." The second article says it derives from the first (see the words "according to Microsoft" which link to the first article), and the first article mentions marking the ballot online, not filing it. I think the Information Week writer injected some of his own bias into his article.
  
  I will stand by what I said.
  
  Now, if I could only find out whether the California county in which I vote is one of the 13.
55. Re:Why? by TheLink · 2012-01-26 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you think the Florida one was tampered with what makes you think they wouldn't be able to tamper with it if it was electronic (especially given the sorts of electronic voting systems they use or are proposing)?
  
  At least with the Florida one people suspect something is fishy. With the usual "black box" voting, good luck detecting anything unless the perps are idiots (and do a 99% or even 101% win) or a verifiable system is used like the one I linked to.
  
  In the country I'm in I strongly suspect the elections are being rigged, but they can only do it easily with postal votes and gerrymandering. So despite all that the corrupt ruling party (they are clearly corrupt, some practically even admitting it in the press) still lost many significant constituencies in the last election. If it was all electronic and online votes were allowed things might have been very different.
  --
  
  Too many replies beneath your current threshold
pointless by vlm · 2012-01-25 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Peasants, do not revolt. You can select from one 1%er corporate purchased candidate or the other 1%er corporate purchased candidate. They do have slightly different marketing messages/lies and you get to select which identical candidate hired the better PR agency and/or you get to select which lies you prefer to hear.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:pointless by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Peasants, do not revolt. You can select from one 1%er corporate purchased candidate or the other 1%er corporate purchased candidate. They do have slightly different marketing messages/lies and you get to select which identical candidate hired the better PR agency and/or you get to select which lies you prefer to hear.
  You can vote for [] Bashar al-Assad [] Tank come to your door and blow you up
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:pointless by smooth+wombat · 2012-01-25 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, Futurama did it better. (small commercial at beginning of Comedy Central clip)
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. Re:pointless by hedwards · 2012-01-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  A Head in the Polls was great, but I also like that seen from The Day The Earth Stood Stupid when they all go out to join the Reform Party and in more recent airings the TEA Party.
4. Re:pointless by zumajim · 2012-01-25 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  The folks at Diebold are probably pissing themselves right about now.
5. Re:pointless by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Peasants, do not revolt. You can select from one 1%er corporate purchased candidate or the other 1%er corporate purchased candidate. They do have slightly different marketing messages/lies and you get to select which identical candidate hired the better PR agency and/or you get to select which lies you prefer to hear.
  You can vote for [] Bashar al-Assad [] Tank come to your door and blow you up
  Right, so... the tank needs better PR.
Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 05:54 · Score: 1

Where do you want your voting fraud to go today?
1. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  This is the best argument I've heard lately that demonstrates the reason that *localized* and *representative* government is still the best idea today.
  (I realize you weren't making that point).
  Lately you hear a lot of people theorizing that we no longer need representative democracy, that we can all just vote on our laws via the internet.
  You also hear we no longer need localized gov't: let's just federalize the majority-opinion.
  But the internet is a difficult thing to make perfectly honest.
  Localized and representative gov't is the best way to represent the most people as fairly and honestly as possible.
  Make more laws at the local level, and make voting be done as much as possible through face-to-face communication.
  Distant, faceless voting will probably never be fair nor honest.
2. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  All the crap we've been hearing about lobbyists and money distorting the lawmaking process and screwing over the people in the process, and you posted that?
  It doesn't matter who gets elected, they will be corrupted by corporate America.
3. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  You missed one of the key points I made: *** LOCALIZED ***
  Too much of our gov't has been pushed to the Federal level.
  This distorts the process and invites corruption; corruption that is hard to see and hard to control.
  Next time, read what the person wrote and take the time to actually COMPREHEND what they said rather than assume you know what they meant.
4. Re:Microsoft by losfromla · 2012-01-25 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  representative government is best, seriously? Representative government was created primarily as a means of buffering the rich from the majority opinion (our views tend to diverge unless we're drunk on tea). It still does that. Representatives (the rich then, as the rich now) can listen to what their constituents (the majority) wants, and "balance" it with what the rich want, by and large, the rich get what they want. The only way to get laws that are not bought and paid for by corporate elites is to remove the buffer of representatives and let laws be voted on directly by the people (same with the President). I do agree that localized government would be best. National government should only be in place for defending external borders from armed attacks...
  
  --
  Only I can judge you.
5. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with a full-blown democracy is that historically it has always devolved into a "vote the majority stuff from the minority"-system.
  How do you propose we solve that (major) problem? It's never been done before so I'm not confident a pure democracy (which you propose) can ever successfully protect the rights of the minority. At least with a representative democracy small groups of people stand chances of inserting their rep. into influential-positions and thereby balance the power out. In fact, in some representative systems (our federal Senate, for example) all groups have equal power -- so the minor groups aren't easily overwhelmed by the major ones. In this case, those groups are states with small populations vs. ones with large populations. Big states can't just push small states around.
  How do you effectively provide that protection in a direct democracy where every individual is a single vote of equal power and thus large states (counties, cities, etc.) could easily overpower small ones?
Election returns prediction by dkleinsc · 2012-01-25 05:56 · Score: 5, Funny

Barack Obama (D) 38%
Mitt Romney (R) 37%
DLL Not Found (I) 15%
Ron Paul (I) 10%

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
1. Re:Election returns prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Barack Obama (D) 38%
  Mitt Romney (R) 37%
  DLL Not Found (I) 100%
  Ron Paul (I) 10%
  FTFY.
2. Re:Election returns prediction by Anon-Admin · 2012-01-25 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ill go one better, the system gets hacked and the following returns are kicked out
  Barack Obama (D) 0%
  Mitt Romney (R) 0%
  Ron Paul (I) 0%
  Mickey Mouse (M) 100%
3. Re:Election returns prediction by Sarten-X · 2012-01-25 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Only 10% error? That's impressive!
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
4. Re:Election returns prediction by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  Ill go one better, the system gets hacked and the following returns are kicked out
  Barack Obama (D) 0%
  Mitt Romney (R) 0%
  Ron Paul (I) 0%
  Anonymous (A) 100%
  With honourable mention for LOL WUT Party candidate
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Election returns prediction by backslashdot · 2012-01-25 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Uh, if Mickey Mouse was really on that ballot those would be the real results.
6. Re:Election returns prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  More importantly, is Mickey Mouse born in USA? Does he have a birth certificate?
7. Re:Election returns prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Ill go one better, the system gets hacked and the following returns are kicked out
  Barack Obama (D) 0%
  Mitt Romney (R) 0%
  Ron Paul (I) 0%
  Mickey Mouse (M) 100%
  That's redundant.
8. Re:Election returns prediction by forkfail · 2012-01-25 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  This thread leads me to imagine Disney suing Anonymous for unlicensed use of Mickey Mouse.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
Good news everyone by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 05:56 · Score: 1

This election has had the largest turnout ever. 280 million people cast online votes alone. The downside is that ants now have control over the free world. I for one welcome our insect overloads.
1. Re:Good news everyone by jeffmeden · 2012-01-25 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  This election has had the largest turnout ever. 280 million people cast online votes alone. The downside is that ants now have control over the free world. I for one welcome our insect overloads.
  So who won? The write-in for "Protect the queen!"?
Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't understand why Cloud Technology is necessary for something which requires only a secure website and identity validation. Is this a cast of technology for the sake of technology?

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by rtfa-troll · 2012-01-25 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because now the IT director of the state can put a cloud project on his CV and double his income at his next job.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
2. Re:Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by Millennium · 2012-01-25 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how does voting require Cloud?
  Well, someone has to carry the huge frickin sword.
3. Re:Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by turbidostato · 2012-01-25 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Is this a cast of technology for the sake of technology?"
  Letting aside the problems about electronic ballots themselves, voting is as good a case for cloud computing as it can be. "Only a secure website", you say? well, what do you want it for the four years between ballots?
4. Re:Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by ackthpt · 2012-01-25 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Because now the IT director of the state can put a cloud project on his CV and double his income at his next job.
  Sounds cromulent. Sommun just remind him/her it's not spelled C-L-O-W-D
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
5. Re:Exactly how does voting require Cloud? by forkfail · 2012-01-25 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  It's THE CLOUD - the magical answer to everything.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
Why not let big corporations hire politicians? by rrohbeck · 2012-01-25 05:58 · Score: 2

They pay them anyway, now they run elections? Why bother with this voting thing at all?

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
1. Re:Why not let big corporations hire politicians? by sohmc · 2012-01-25 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  As horrible as the movie was, I believe Jeff Goldblum said it best in "Man of the Year": Perception of legitimacy is more important than legitimacy itself.
  
  --
  We don't live in Shouldland.
2. Re:Why not let big corporations hire politicians? by forkfail · 2012-01-25 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  Keeps politician salaries/bribes up.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
Uhm.. by ptx0 · 2012-01-25 06:00 · Score: 1

Who decided to award this to Microsoft? Why not a smaller firm?
1. Re:Uhm.. by PPH · 2012-01-25 06:02 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  We had a vote ....
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Nice by GameboyRMH · 2012-01-25 06:00 · Score: 2

Votes running online on a Microsoft-based system? This would be awesome if there were any candidates worth stuffing the virtual ballot box for :-P

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Nice by mr1911 · 2012-01-25 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  This would be awesome if there were any candidates worth stuffing the virtual ballot box for :-P
  As with most elections this one will turn out to be who is voted against.
  
  --
  This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
  Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
2. Re:Nice by hedwards · 2012-01-25 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I trust them more than I trust Diebold. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Documents_reveal_Georgia_was_warned_of_0730.html You can look at other coverage, but this is a fairly accurate accounting of what's known.
  At least with MS, you can be assured that it isn't corruption, just incompetence if the results aren't right.
3. Re:Nice by The+Mister+Purple · 2012-01-25 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Excellent observation. Depressing, but excellent.
  
  --
  "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." Feynman
Interesting trade... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:06 · Score: 1

So you get online voting in exchange for giving up the secret ballot, eh?
Sorry, but I can't say I find that a worthwhile trade. The secret ballot is one of the most important safeguards a democracy can implement.
1. Re:Interesting trade... by hedwards · 2012-01-25 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  As somebody that's a week out from moving overseas, I can assure you that it's not quite that simple. It typically takes up to 3 weeks for mail to get between here and there and for a $30 fee I can cut that down to a week. During which time the mail may or may not get through.
  Voting online is something that does have risks, but you have to keep in mind that the number of votes that are likely to be eligible are going to be fairly small and that particularly in WA state it isn't easy to tell what the vote is supposed to be as long as the signature looks good.
2. Re:Interesting trade... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  AFAIK, all absentee voting presently gives up the secret ballot, and while I share the common /. distaste for paperless voting, in this case the only way out is through -- namely, the use of cryptography is the only way to effectively provide a secure secret ballot for remote voting.
  The only way secret ballot works locally is you verify _who_ gets in to the voting area (no fraudulent voters), hand them _one_ ballot (no multiple votes) without their name on it (no association to the voter by name) and the presence of a mixing process, namely multiple queues, make association to the voter by voting order impractical. With absentee voting, you can't control the voting area; delivering the ballots typically involves a return address, which both permits some degree of screening for fraudulent votes (not foolproof, though, since malicious voters can lie), and wrecks the secrecy of the ballot.
It's not voting, it's election management by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:11 · Score: 0

election management through corruption and backdoor bullshit, the oversight is the power supply, silicone, firmware, and programmers -- not the people.
Celente is right, let the people vote.
Celente is wrong, let them vote online.
Secret ballot? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:21 · Score: 0

"the signature on the ballot is matched" That's not good.
In other news... by stavrica · 2012-01-25 06:23 · Score: 1

In a move to present itself as being even less evil that Google, Microsoft has announced its intention to decrease its lobbying budget to $0 over the next 36 months.
Great by backslashdot · 2012-01-25 06:23 · Score: 2

So now people who don't have to live in it get more convenient ways to decide how people in a particular state should live?
1. Re:Great by DeathFromSomewhere · 2012-01-25 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Queue the support our troops rhetoric in 3... 2... 1...
  
  --
  -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
2. Re:Great by Hentes · 2012-01-26 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, people not living in a country shouldn't have the right to vote there.
This will guarantee elections by HangingChad · 2012-01-25 06:32 · Score: 0

This will guarantee Microsoft wins every election.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Less of a threat by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-01-25 06:34 · Score: 2

than the GOP trotting out their 'must be this rich and white' voter ID laws wherever and as quickly as they can. Poll taxes are back.

When demographics give you racially impure lemons, destroy free and fair elections as you see fit.
1. Re:Less of a threat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  A state ID averages a whopping $10.. You must be real rich or real white to be able to afford that huh???
  But hey, the left needs race-baiting tools like you to stay alive.. So keep on turning, tool.
2. Re:Less of a threat by hedwards · 2012-01-25 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's not just the $10 it's having the time to do it and access to the other documentation. Plus, unless you drive a car that's $10 that you wouldn't otherwise need to spend.
  It's worth noting that the only reason why the GOP cares about it at all is because minorities are more likely to not have photo identification than other groups are. Around here we allow several other forms of identification and despite GOP whining they haven't been able to produce any evidence of voter fraud significant enough to justify disenfranchising all those voters.
Ballots not Votes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 06:42 · Score: 1

If you read the article, its not the actual VOTING that is being done online in most cases, it is having access to an absentee ballot. Oregon does its entire election by mail. It is actually a lot more secure than using polling places. Each ballot is returned in an envelope signed by the voter. The ballot itself is inside a second privacy envelope. Once the signature on the outside envelope is compared to the voter registration card, the privacy envelope is pulled out and put in a pile to be counted so there is no way to trace the ballot to an individual voter.
The problems with that system are mostly around the privacy of the voter when filling out the ballot. It also requires prior registration, Oregon does not have same day registration.
In any case, the system described here for providing and returning ballots certainly has less problems than commonly used voting machines or even ballot counting machines.
buzz word by alienzed · 2012-01-25 06:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are we replacing the word 'Internet' with 'Cloud'?

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
1. Re:buzz word by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  In topology diagrams, the cloud was always the part of the internet that you didn't want to diagram (i.e. everything that's not your network, your server, or your client; the in-between routers and such). So it was, in a sense, "the internet". Someone got carried away at some point.
"now complete Florida primary"? by Dean+Edmonds · 2012-01-25 07:41 · Score: 1

Is the submitter a time-traveler, or was zie just expecting the /. editors to take a week longer than they did in posting the submission?

--
-deane
all your cloud are belong to us by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 07:46 · Score: 0

Azure? Doesn't that favor "blue" candidates?
DRE 700 wins! by Presto+Vivace · 2012-01-25 07:59 · Score: 1

Voting Machines election one of their own.
Really??? by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2012-01-25 09:17 · Score: 1

From punching chits into a piece of paper to Cloud based voting in only 10 years, amazing.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Cloud Based Voting System? by Digital+Vomit · 2012-01-25 09:20 · Score: 1

Cloud-based voting system? They should have just gone with some internet-based voting system instead.

--
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Cloudy weather, low visibility by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-01-25 09:22 · Score: 1

In addition to a now complete Florida cloud, Virginia and California will use the cloud for their cloud, and Washington cloud will use it for its cloud. To ensure the clouds are from legitimate clouds, clouds use unique clouding clouds to access their clouds online, according to Microsoft. Once clouded, the cloud on the cloud is clouded with cloud cloud to cloud cloud cloud.
Obligatory XKCD by hedwards · 2012-01-25 09:40 · Score: 1

http://xkcd.com/908/
1. Re:Obligatory XKCD by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-01-25 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Is that Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw running the cloud?
Backups by fadethepolice · 2012-01-25 16:40 · Score: 1

I trust this a lot more than the electronic voting machines. At least you can call the help desk for a backup tape.
Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 16:58 · Score: 0

No democracy left in America to protect.
Vote tampering... in a two party system where either party winds
up serving the same master.
The best part is how angry you all were with Ralph Nader.
GOP lied about the buses by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-25 17:16 · Score: 0

Last election they claimed buses were bringing voters from one state to the next to vote. It was a complete a lie.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-25 20:26 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wrong, and wrong again by geezer+nerd · 2012-01-26 10:49 · Score: 1

The USA IS the only country which taxes citizens that way. Many (most?) countries do tax the worldwide income of their citizens, but only while those citizens are tax residents of their home country. Most countries stop taxing citizens when they move away from the home country for a period of time. The US is the only country which never gives up. A US citizen is taxed on worldwide income no matter where they live and how long they have lived there.

The $87000 exemption you mention is there, but applies only to earned income. I live offshore, am retired and have no earned income, so that exemption certainly does not apply to me (wish it did). Yes, there are exemptions for taxes paid to foreign countries, which follow generally from the idea of not taxing a tax.

My country of residence also taxes my worldwide income. Thankfully there are some tax agreements between the countries which alleviate potential double taxation, so the bite is not as bad as it could be.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-01-26 12:25 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion