Validating Voters For Open Source Governance, In Person

An anonymous reader writes "As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance to collaborative and open source governance, some interesting new issues arise. The biggest is usually user authentication: how can we avoid sock-puppets and spammers from overtaking the voting process? Enter the concept of the streetwiki, an ingenious system for having humans validate their physical neighbors. Bleeding-edge social organization meets ancient validation protocol."

Comments

Seeing more of my neighbors?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I do my best to avoid them, they're terrible people!

This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be).. however, you do have to announce your name and address out loud to the election official at the poll before they let you sign in. (some people find this weird.. you're working the polls, and people come in and just show you their sample ballot or ID, and you tell them.. gotta say it out loud)..

The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[wulfmans]

Sorry, everybody should show ID to vote. You need ID to open a bank account, get insurance. buy booze. hell you even need ID to go to an Obama rally. Gimme a break.
getting an ID should be FREE. So everybody can have one.
Oh...... unless your an illegal person here who CANNOT legally vote anyway.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[gd2shoe]

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)...

The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.

Please stop drinking to cool aid. It's not healthy.

How many times is that going to happen? 0.01% of the time? Less? If it does happen, what's to keep the perp from signing a scribble, knowing that it may be thrown out, and move onto the next polling place to vote again? They're not going to be arrested on the spot, and there aren't cameras at polling places. Even if there were, there'd be no way to connect the ballot to the face on the camera. (There'd better not be!) There is simply no risk of getting caught.

What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat. (and probably rigging the odd close race, though they have much more efficient ways to do that.) (California will give you an ID if you claim to be poor. Well, they discount it to $7 and the welfare office will give you cash. Close enough.)

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cowboy76Spain]

So....

How many people live in a country? How many poll watchers do you need to ensure that nobody gets in fraudulently?

Also, even if caught, the worst that the trickster gets is that his vote does not get counted.

Really, as a way of ensuring the legality of votes that method is just a joke. If you want to rig it with foreigners, just give as a direction an unpopulated, remote area and trust in probabilities.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[techno-vampire]

What you wrote about poll watchers sounds good, but that's not how it works, at least, not in California. I know, because I helped run various polls in Los Angeles for over a decade. The only people who may challenge a person's right to vote are the people running the poll. A poll watcher (or somebody waiting their turn to vote) has the right to object to somebody who they don't think should be allowed to vote, but only a part of the precinct's staff can make a formal challenge.

Once, I remember allowing a man to use a provisional ballot to quiet him down, although I knew it wouldn't be accepted. He had told me already that he'd moved out of the precinct over six months ago, never bothered to re-register and was insisting that he be allowed to vote. Sorry, but he'd had ample time to re-register and the law says that he can only vote in his old precinct if he moved after registration closed. I let him vote, sealed the ballot in a provisional envelope and wrote the circumstances on the back. I'd bet money on long odds that the ballot ended up being shredded unopened.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cpu6502]

>>>there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

I agree 100%! I want to be able to vote for Mitt Romney at least 5 times, and these damn voter-ID laws are making that difficult. Curses. Foiled again.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cpu6502]

My state requires a photo ID. The poll watcher looks at me, then my photo, then at me before she allows me to proceed.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Uh, until you stop being ignorant why don't you just let the adults speak on this?

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Now these are facts. Maybe you really hate them and can't stand they are true. They are true anyway - get over yourself. I would LOVE to have state-issued photo ID required to vote. It would be great. Photo IDs are very low cost. If you simply cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so then you have bigger problems.

The only people who are against this are 1) racists who think just because you're black or Hispanic that you cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so, 2) people who want to commit voter fraud, 3) Democrats who benefit from voter fraud, or 4) well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe that photo ID requirements would ever disenfranchise anyone. You see, none of these are valid.

Like so many good ideas that we should already be doing, the people who oppose this have no factual reason. Just pure emotion. They don't like something so they think none of the facts are worth investigating. Sigh. Maybe a country full of people like this deserves to fail. Maybe those of us with some sense who understand basic things like the importance of honest elections should find another country to relocate to and let the emotional non-thinkers reap what they sow.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[artor3]

Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

Stop listening to right-wing radio. They are poisoning your brain.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[jpapon]

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting

That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Good thing I wouldn't have to guess, if you would provide a citation.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[jpapon]

What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat.

Wait, what? How are non-citizens getting voter registration cards? If a non-citizen can register to vote, how would requiring a state ID change anything?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[artor3]

Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"

Could it be that you're just repeating some lie you heard? And that you're too stupid to even make the mental connection necessary to realize that it is completely impossible for that claim to be factual?

In all honesty, you disgust me. You talk all big and smart, condescending to those "well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe" things, when the truth is you have the mental acuity of a dog, and like all good dogs, you're just doing what your master tells you. You were blessed at birth with the ability to reason. Don't let that gift go to waste.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[MightyMartian]

Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence. Now I realize you probably hold every other poster in contempt, otherwise you wouldn't make such a claim and then evade your responsibilities. But I hope you never imagine that you didn't show yourself for who you truly are.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Uh, until you stop being ignorant why don't you just let the adults speak on this?

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Now these are facts. Maybe you really hate them and can't stand they are true. They are true anyway - get over yourself. I would LOVE to have state-issued photo ID required to vote. It would be great. Photo IDs are very low cost. If you simply cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so then you have bigger problems.

And of COURSE no one who's willing to commit voter fraud would be willing to do something so shocking as obtaining a fake ID. Only teenagers that want to get into bars or buy alcohol would do that.

And even if an ID were to cost $10 (in my state it's $25) it would also require taking a trip to town/city hall or a DMV/RMV which depending on where you are and how busy it is, may require the better part of a day waiting in line. For someone that's working two jobs or more (say two full time and a part time job) that may be a real hardship.

The only people who are against this are 1) racists who think just because you're black or Hispanic that you cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so, 2) people who want to commit voter fraud, 3) Democrats who benefit from voter fraud, or 4) well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe that photo ID requirements would ever disenfranchise anyone. You see, none of these are valid.

While we're at it, let's try to defray the costs of the election by requiring each voter to chip in a few bucks when they put their ballot in the box. Surely everyone can afford $1 per election, right? There's nothing wrong with that, right?

Like so many good ideas that we should already be doing, the people who oppose this have no factual reason. Just pure emotion. They don't like something so they think none of the facts are worth investigating. Sigh. Maybe a country full of people like this deserves to fail. Maybe those of us with some sense who understand basic things like the importance of honest elections should find another country to relocate to and let the emotional non-thinkers reap what they sow.

I can think of other alternatives. One such alternative would be to send everyone a ballot through the mail in a nondescript envelope (basically expanding the existing absentee ballot process to everyone) and requiring them to fill in the ballot at the polling place. This would be easier if election day was a federal holiday and/or employers were required by law to allow workers time off to vote. Now true, people who are willing to commit voter fraud may also be willing to commit mail fraud ... but if the envelopes are nondescript, the person committing the voter and mail frauds would need to intercept all the mail, and that's more likely to be noticed.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[sumdumass]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1

it's not what the op claimed, but it isn't exactly refuting it either. I like how they even point to 106% of the last census (less then 2 years ago) being registered to vote in one Ohio county. At first glance, you might think well, that's only 6% over, but think of the children or the lack of children for it to be that simple.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

Which works when you make folks come down to the polling station. Which tends to make it harder for the poor folks working multiple jobs to vote. My state has had absentee voting for a while now and it's now the only way of voting. Haven't seen any sort of evidence of fraud cropping up. The GOP tried to sue and ultimately had votes taken from their candidate when only the Democrats could submit actual instances of fraudulent voting.

Photo ID isn't the sort of panacea that it's made out to be, when the GOP loses they'll just find something else to blame to cheat the system.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[aardvarkjoe]

At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

The flip side of this is that, given the current laws that actively prevent any sort of voting security, it would be virtually impossible to prove voter fraud if it was occurring.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[aaarrrgggh]

It is a far cry from what the previous poster claimed. The fact that voter rolls are not purged is not the same as fraudulent votes being cast.

Recall the 2000 election in Florida, with over-zealous purging of the rolls to eliminate potential felons ("similar names"). You can go too far in either direction without an agenda.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read that article pretty carefully to catch what they're talking about. There is a big problem in deciding what to do about the population of a university. As far as the US census is concerned a student is counted in the location of the university. However, depending on what state you're talking about, that student may or may not be allowed to register to vote in the location of the university. For example, in Williamsburg, VA the population of the College of William and Mary is counted as part of the population of Williamsburg according to the US census. But in the eyes of the state of Virginia, those students are not allowed to vote in Williamsburg. This caused quite a stir because the university population is overwealmingly NOT Republican. The Republicans control the state and out of fear were unable to do the right thing and let the students vote where they're counted in the census. The crazy part about this is that because the census numbers are used in determining the number and location of representatives' districts, students in the college are being used to swell the district and make the representative of that district more powerful than he should be.
 
https://acluva.org/1260/aclu-offers-assistance-to-william-and-mary-students-barred-from-registering-to-vote-in-local-elections/

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[sumdumass]

You need to read that article pretty carefully to catch what they're talking about. There is a big problem in deciding what to do about the population of a university. As far as the US census is concerned a student is counted in the location of the university. However, depending on what state you're talking about, that student may or may not be allowed to register to vote in the location of the university.

Sigh.. 106% of the population in the census. This isn't about college students registering to vote locally if they are counted at the university for the census, there is still the problem of being 6% over 100% of the population and all the under 18 crowds not being present plus an outrageously high voter registration in the area. Well, perhaps if they registered then moved and weren't taken from the voting roles.

For example, in Williamsburg, VA the population of the College of William and Mary is counted as part of the population of Williamsburg according to the US census. But in the eyes of the state of Virginia, those students are not allowed to vote in Williamsburg. This caused quite a stir because the university population is overwealmingly NOT Republican. The Republicans control the state and out of fear were unable to do the right thing and let the students vote where they're counted in the census. The crazy part about this is that because the census numbers are used in determining the number and location of representatives' districts, students in the college are being used to swell the district and make the representative of that district more powerful than he should be.

Actually, someone who is a part time resident who plans on going back to another place should be voting back at that other place and not where they relocated temporarily. Otherwise, I could ship the 8% unemployed on vacation to anywhere I wanted to in order to influence state and local elections and even federal elections.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Mashiki]

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

Uh...
Why? For the love of all that's ... why? In Canada it's a requirement to have ID to vote. And it's to stop flagrant voter fraud that runs amok like you have in the US now. Here's how it works here: At tax time you are given the option to give your personal information to elections canada via your taxes. This information is passed to the provincial branch of elections canada. If you weren't of age at the time, you can be enrolled when the next election comes along(very rare but it happens). When you show up at the polling station, you show government issued ID. Or two current bills(last 30 days), showing that you live in that district. Everyone has ID of some form up here. There are also a few other things you can use. Once that happens, your name is stricken from the voter register and the ballot is used up.

No wonder voting in the US is a mess.

Hey, someone earlier up wanted a source on that 3 million dead? Here, well it's 1.8 million, give or take a bit. Though it might be more, with 24 million more listed as inaccurate, and several million more registered illegally. Including non-americans.

Voter ID works. GET IT.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[taustin]

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

If we know about them, then existing laws are quite adequate to purge them from the rolls and prosecute the criminals respsonsible. Since that doesn't happen (especially the prosecution part), there are only a couple of logical possibilies: 1) If existing laws aren't enforced, there is no reason to believe that voter ID laws will be, or 2) what we know and what's happening in the real world are not the same thing.

Either way, insulting someone because you can't refute their point (IDs aren't free, aren't readily available to people without a permanent fixed address, aren't available at all to people with transportation issues, all people who have the right to vote) just makes you look stupid and dishonest.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[taustin]

From reading Slashdot, one would think that its users have no internet connection and cannot perform a Google search.

If you can' be bothered to back up your claim, I can't be bothered to take it (or you) seriously. If you don't care if you're taken seriously, you're pointless, posting just to hear the keyboard click.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

chill dude. you sound like someone baited & hooked.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

My state switched to vote by mail a few years back and there's been no evidence of increased voter fraud. Requiring people to show up just disadvantages people who are unable to show up, regardless of reason. I wouldn't be able to vote this year if I had to physically show up as I'll be out of the country during the election.

Until somebody provides some evidence that voter fraud is real and significant enough to justify the measure, people need to substantiate the idea that IDs are going to solve the problem.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Internetuser1248]

I would just like to gently remind the thread and slashdot in general that this article is NOT about the US. Yes in any conversation about voting and elections the US is an important example, but these conversations that gradually devolve into talking about the fine details of voter laws in florida and california and then inevitably to flamewars about the relative merits of the dems vs the republicans are offtopic and irrelevant. The article is about using distributed semantic networks to verify the identities of individuals for the purpose of voting.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[rtb61]

Far simpler to do electronic voter role checking. Person turns up gives their name and address and quick video clip is taken of them as they do so, they name and address is checked off and if nobody else tried to do so, they are allowed to vote. If somebody else has already done so, you now have a video record to aid in prosecution. Restrictive access IDs is all about blocking people from voting, just as is weekday polling or false claims about state citizen ship to block people from once resident in other states now voting in the current state. The priority is to ensure voting rights not to block them.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[elewton]

Posting to undo accidental mod.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

... send everyone a ballot through the mail in a nondescript envelope ...

Council elections here are mandatory but everyone blows them off, they are such a non-event. So the council sent a postal vote to all residents this year. A few people had legitimate complaints: Like their ballot paper arrived 3 weeks late. Most of the whining was about having to choose a candidate. Did I say council elections were a non-event? most aldermen/alderwomen don't issue a policy statement, although they divide into two camps: The pro-family and anti-business camp or the pro-business and pro-urbanisation camp.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[tepples]

From reading Slashdot, one would think that its users have no internet connection and cannot perform a Google search.

What keywords, when used with Google Search, produce a relevant result as one of the top three?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, someone who is a part time resident who plans on going back to another place should be voting back at that other place and not where they relocated temporarily. Otherwise, I could ship the 8% unemployed on vacation to anywhere I wanted to in order to influence state and local elections and even federal elections."
 
First of all it's where you're counted in the census. If you're counted in the census in one location, then that's where your representation is, therefore that's where you vote. All else is called disenfranchisement. People like you probably lock the front door of your house all the time because you're scared of the Latino workers at the construction site down the street. Or maybe it's your neighbor's maid? Perhaps it's the African American family that moved in next door?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[SwedishPenguin]

Actually, someone who is a part time resident who plans on going back to another place should be voting back at that other place and not where they relocated temporarily.

Surely, they should vote where they currently reside? Should the same apply to people who move frequently but are not students? Where should they vote?

In Sweden, you simply vote where you registered your primary residence, regardless of whether you're a student or not. Common practice is to register in the place of study, it's your place of residence for at least 9 months of the year after all. (no "voter registration", every citizen over 18 years of age gets a voter card in the mail)

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[jon3k]

There were 11 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2008. Try again.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[arth1]

At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters.

Correct. It's a much bigger problem that people don't get to vote, for various reasons. Including the WTF requirement of having to "register to vote" - a measure that's only designed to reduce the amount of voters, and the disenfranchisement of prisoners[*], neither of which you will find in most western democracies.

Let's face it - the goal here isn't to catch the one or two people who might be voting without a right, the goal is to intimidate people into not voting, and using this excuse as a veneer of performing society a service. If you really want to do society a service, help by doing free taxi service for voters on election day, so we get more votes, not fewer.

[*]: When someone in jail for mild drugs or bigamy isn't allowed to vote on whether mild drugs or group marriage should be allowed, you don't have a democracy - you have value-conservative moral oppression.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[arth1]

Actually, someone who is a part time resident who plans on going back to another place should be voting back at that other place and not where they relocated temporarily.

What a strange point of view.
Where I used to live - not in the US, I just went in to the polling place (or consulate) wherever I was at election day, and said I wanted to vote for [place of residence]. The ballots were printed out unless they already had them, and I went into a recluse, voted and placed my envelope in a special urn for absentee ballots.
No problem. No need to travel. No need to vote ahead of time. No registration. No intimidation.

Let it also be noted that most US elections would not even be legal in many places, due to the abysmal voter turnout in the US, precisely because of all the hoops they make voters jump through to get their vote counted. If the voter turnout is less than 50%, and you don't even allow blank votes, you get "winners" that only a small fraction of the population voted for. Most voted for "none of the above", but didn't get it.
The solution isn't to make it even harder to vote, but to get more people to vote!

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[arth1]

In some states, non-citizen permanent residents are indeed allowed to vote in local elections.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[NicBenjamin]

You're mistaken if you think photo ID is required in Canada. According to the actual Canadian government you can get buy with non-photo ID and a bill, or even skip ID completely as long as your buddy with ID will vouch for you:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

As for the US Election system, remember that a) it's basically unchanged since anonymous voting was invented the early 19th century, partly because b) the only people who actually pay attention to it are partisan hacks, but also because it works pretty well most of the time.. Both sets of hacks know that, all other things being equal, the left-wing hacks are better off if more people vote. Therefore the right-wing hacks try to arrange things to make it impossible to vote, and the left-wingers try to make it easy.

As for the meat of the argument, as a left-wing hack I (surprise surprise) oppose ID requirements. Stealing an election one vote at a time is just something that doesn't happen, so forcing people to buy ID (as almost all these laws do -- there's no option to use your free, government issued health card and a phone bill) hurts my pet causes and solves no problems.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[neoshroom]

how can we avoid sock-puppets...

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting

That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.

I agree. We need a citation about made up sock-puppets.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[sumdumass]

No, the state gets to make the rules of who can vote not the federal government who does the census. That's in the constitution.

You can call it anything you want, you can even look silly by attempting to blame it on someone's insecurities but it is you looking silly not me. I for one lock my front door because without a sign of forced entry it's almost impossible to show someone was in your house illegally. It has nothing to do with race or because some illegal alien who is already violating the law is in the neighborhood. In facf, the last 5 or 10 people on the news for breaking into houses in my area was white.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[sumdumass]

They should vote where they live- not where they are visiting because of resources available to them. If they move to some foreign town 200 or more miles away for the purpose of going to school and have every intent of leaving the area once the school is over, they are visiting.

That is probably the biggest issue there. Why should all the full time residents have their voice diluted because visitors overwhelm their jurisdiction then move on? You have to remember, the US is not like Sweden. The federal government only has partial supremacy over the states, the states are sovereign in all other regards.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[sumdumass]

There are absentee ballots available in all states. Someone from another state visiting should be using the absentee ballot to vote in their home state.

More voters does not always mean better results. The majority of people in the US are politically ignorant and to some respect even stupid. Forcing these idiots (see the greek origin of the word, it's not an insult per se) to vote or encouraging them to participate when their attention span doesn't last through a TV commercial in most cases is foolish. This is especially true when you have xenophobic candidates who don't look past their grasp for political power long enough to figure out what made WWI and WWII such large wars and a mental population hell bent on the same isolationist policies that led to the original great depression in the US.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

Correct. It's a much bigger problem that people don't get to vote, for various reasons. Including the WTF requirement of having to "register to vote" - a measure that's only designed to reduce the amount of voters, and the disenfranchisement of prisoners[*], neither of which you will find in most western democracies.

Wait..you now, no longer want people to even have to register to vote?!!? I mean, how hard is it? Most people drive, they can register same time as they go for drivers license.

I'm sorry...but I don't see a thing wrong with having to put forth even a small modicum of effort to vote. If you're interested enough in participating in the process, you will. The registration allows those who declare a party, to vote in their respective primaries (I don't care for this myself, wish all primaries are open to all registered voters), it helps them know where polls are needed, to assign you to one...etc. There are reasons behind voting.

Seeing as that the largest % group of people that consistantly vote are the elderly, I don't see this as an impediment to the younger crowd.

There have been large numbers of attemted voter fraud over the years....and even it is was "only one or two" people trying to vote fraudulently, with elections as close as we've seen in past years, every vote DOES count.

We have a lot of illegals in the country...if you're not a citizen, you can't vote. If we don't check...what's to stop other countries that would wish to sway our elections in some manner, from flooding the country with people coming in, just to vote? Sounds far fetched, but hey...it could happen.

If you are not interested enough to vote and can put forth even the slightest effort to register and have a free ID made....well, I don't see you interested enough to weigh the issues and candidates and make an intelligent vote. Hell, what's next....too much effort to go to the POLLS....and in order to get those peoples' votes...we send out people door to door to get their votes?

Geez....in the old days...people rode horses and buggies or walked for days just to vote. And people today can't even make the effort to register or get an id?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

People like you probably lock the front door of your house all the time...

Don't most people normally keep all the doors to their house locked?

Not sure what you're getting at....

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

And even if an ID were to cost $10 (in my state it's $25) it would also require taking a trip to town/city hall or a DMV/RMV which depending on where you are and how busy it is, may require the better part of a day waiting in line. For someone that's working two jobs or more (say two full time and a part time job) that may be a real hardship.

Err...where do you live?

Most all states that I know of that require ID for voting, offer said IDs free of charge.

A person has to go register to vote....getting an ID isn't any more difficult.

If someone can't put forth a little effort to vote, then they're probably not interested enough to research, listen and made an informed vote either. I mean, when is ti too much effort? Are the polling places too far away? Not convenient with your schedule?

At some point...you have to decide if it is important enough to you to put forth the effort. It isn't convenient to me either, but on voting day, if a weekday...I get up earlier than normal, so that I have plenty of time to get to the polls (usually early there isn't much a line) and wait in line if need be...vote and still get to work on time.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

If we know about them, then existing laws are quite adequate to purge them from the rolls and prosecute the criminals respsonsible. Since that doesn't happen (especially the prosecution part), there are only a couple of logical possibilies: 1) If existing laws aren't enforced, there is no reason to believe that voter ID laws will be, or 2) what we know and what's happening in the real world are not the same thing.

Trouble is....we have people that don't even want the current laws enforced....the Feds are currently suing the State of FL, to try to keep them from purging their roles based on the state of FL's ruleset and laws.

Seems strange that the current administration doesn't want a sovereign state of the US to clean their voting rosters to make sure it is as clean as legally possible?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

Do a little digging into politics and corruption and the voting rolls over the decades in Chicago...and get back to me on that with reference to election rigging and fraud. That should give you a good example of what HAS been seen to have taken place in recent history.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation please. No, really. Prove that this is always true ("slashdot or anywhere else") with no exceptions. That's your responsibility, right?

How about you use your method and google for it yourself. Or does it suddenly suck when it's other people making claims?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should you have to register for a basic fucking right? In my home country you walk in with your passport (everyone has one), get a stamp to make sure you don't wote again, vote and are done. GP is right, registering is nothing but adding another step to remove undesirables (e.g. you don't drive, we don't want folks like you to vote easily).

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

Why should you have to register for a basic fucking right? In my home country you walk in with your passport (everyone has one),

Well, you had to go in to register for that passport, didn't you?

Same thing really....but over here in the US, not everyone has a passport....I'd venture to guess it is quite a minority of US citizens that have a passport...so, we need some method of knowing who's eligible to vote.

Also, dunno how your country is set up, but here, we have federal, state, local levels of govt...and registration helps them to know where you live and who you should be voting for....you wouldn't want someone in another city coming over to vote on issues in your city, that don't affect them as they do you, would you? Same thing with states....Oregon has many different interests and needs than a state like Louisiana....

registering is nothing but adding another step to remove undesirables (e.g. you don't drive, we don't want folks like you to vote easily).

Plenty of people have registered to vote, etc...over the years...why is it such a big problem all of a sudden? Hell, in the 1800's....no one drove....people walked or rode horses for days for the privilege of voting....and people nowdays can't walk or be inconvenienced to ride a fucking bus to the polling places? And once you register to vote...it isnt' like you have to register every year or anything....only if you move and that can be done by mail or fax....which anyone can do.

Geez....when did we all become so fucking lazy?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievable that this same old story about bank accounts, etc. justifying photo voter ID. Where have you been? Voting is a right of every citizen whether the citizen has an ID or not, getting a bank account is privilege offered by the bank, so the bank can ask whatever it wants.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[gd2shoe]

Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections?

Both major parties steal elections regularly. They consider it a part of the game.

Where is your evidence?

A variety of voting watchdog groups. The general public finds it esoteric and the media either can't figure out how to spin it into a frenzy, or they're just plain bought off. (probably the former, but I have no way to know.)

Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

You've made a non-sequiter leap here. The Democrat party is opposing voting ID laws across the country, not just in California. And they do steal elections in California, when it's going to be close and they think it matters.

Stop listening to right-wing radio.

I don't. Not often, anyway. I've never heard them cover this topic.

They are poisoning your brain.

They're on par with most news, only they don't claim to be unbiased. As with anything, a variety of sources and opinions is to be preferred.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[gd2shoe]

There are a number of ways they do this. In some localities, all they need to do is fill out the voter registration form, lie about citizenship, and give a false SSN. (I don't know how common that is, but there have been places busted for permitting it.) Others register using a dead person's credentials. Some register using the credentials of someone from another state. I would even go so far as to guess that some expensive fake IDs come with forged government database entries.

All that's required in most places is a little creativity and the daring to do it. (Voter ID laws would only solve some of these.)

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[arth1]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=50434

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[telso]

In Canada it's a requirement to have ID to vote.

Nope. Federally, and in at least some (and possibly all) cases, provincially, you can be vouched for by another elector without yourself showing ID (and until this past election, federally, you didn't have to show ID unless challenged). (For Quebec, for example, see ss. 335.1, 335.2 and 337.)

And it's to stop flagrant voter fraud that runs amok like you have in the US now.

We didn't have flagrant voter fraud when we didn't require ID to vote federally (until 2011). There's also no evidence of flagrant voter fraud in the US.

Here's how it works here: At tax time you are given the option to give your personal information to elections canada via your taxes.

You are also welcome not to. You still retain the right to vote, and the government can get your info from other ways (including provincial election agencies, who get it from medicare and driver's licence data, among other sources). You can also register on election day, federally, and during the election before election day, at any level.

This information is passed to the provincial branch of elections canada.

More often than not, it's passed the other way. And there is no provincial branch of Elections Canada: Elections Canada is an independent body set up by (the federal) Parliament, while the provincial agencies are set up by the provinces. They are completely independent.

If you weren't of age at the time, you can be enrolled when the next election comes along(very rare but it happens).

Actually, this is incredibly common: most people get a card in the mail six months before they turn 18 telling them they will be automatically added to the permanent electoral list, regardless of whether they've ever filed taxes. In fact, I can't think of anyone who wasn't automatically added at 18.

When you show up at the polling station, you show government issued ID. Or two current bills(last 30 days), showing that you live in that district.

Or you get vouched for. If you don't have ID, you have to swear an oath that you are who you say you are and live where you say you do, and someone who lives near you (in your same polling subdivision) has to make the same oath, and they need to show proper ID. You also have to state your name and address out loud for the deputy returning officer, poll clerk and any candidate representatives to hear. That's it. It's faster if you have ID (and the bills don't even have to be within 30 days; the ID can even be expired, in some cases), but it's not required.

Everyone has ID of some form up here. There are also a few other things you can use.

That's generally true, because all citizens have medicare (and nearly everyone gets the card, though it's not a requirement, actually) (citizens who take up residence elsewhere lose their medicare benefits at some point, but they also eventually (usually) lose their right to vote, though the timeframes don't perfectly overlap). In the US, many people do not have medicare. Many do not have driver's licences. And many don't have other government IDs. And the governments often charge for them. This is nothing but a poll tax in another name, which is unconstitutional, but not every judge agrees with this. If you don't give free IDs to all citizens, you shouldn't require them to be able to vote.

Once that happens, your name is stricken from the voter register and the ballot is used up.

Yup, which is how it works in the US too.

No

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Eskarel]

The Feds are suing the state of Florida because they were pumping out letters to people saying "We think you might be an illegal immigrant, please prove your not or you can't vote" with little to no evidence and to close to an election(I believe it was actually a primary, but an election none the less). They're accuracy rate was abysmal given a large percentage responded with proof they were citizens. It wasn't the purge as such they objected to it was the "Hey his name is Sanchez, he must be an illegal." or "Hey, this guy here is called John Smith, and we've got a convicted felon here called John Smith, must be the same guy".

Voter disenfranchisement is unconstitutional, and it's one of the really fucking big unconstitutional actions. It is probably in fact the most unconstitutional thing someone can do.

No one is arguing that illegals or dead people should be allowed to vote. Some people(myself included) would argue felons ought to be able to vote, but even then it's more an issue of removing the laws preventing them from voting as opposed to having them vote illegally. What people are arguing is that if you're going to purge someone off the voter roll you better be damned sure they aren't eligible to vote, and you should do it far enough out from an election that any false positives you do get(which should be a handful at most) have enough time to rectify the situation, which you better damned well bend over backwards to accommodate, because disenfranchising one single eligible voter is one too many.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Eskarel]

Government offices are open business hours. If you have a low paying menial job, the kind where your boss will sack your ass for calling in sick(they exist), you won't get to a government office during business hours. That's with one job, forget 3. US elections are held on weekdays and if you live in a poor neighborhood where most of the population is in the same situation as you, rocking up first thing after work will give you pretty long shot odds at actually getting to vote before the polls close. Every election polls close while people are still lined up outside. Just because in your middle class white neighborhood(like my middle class white neighborhood) it takes 10 minutes to vote and you can do it on your lunch break, doesn't mean that everyone can.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[jerky]

Not in the California that I live in. You can register as a permanent vote-by-mail voter, and then California will mail your ballot to you. You just fill it out and mail it back, without having to talk to or even see anyone. You do have to sign the envelope you mail back, but I'm not sure how much security a signature provides. (cf www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm#perm)

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

While you can debate showing ID, I've had ID every election (had a driver's license since I was 16), yet my vote has never, not even once been counted (I'm only 29).

The first election I voted in, the Republican candidate challenged all non-republicans, insisting that I was attempting to vote in the wrong district. Since I showed up with only ID and utility bills in my name and not a copy of my lease, I couldn't vote. When I returned with my lease, they said I would need to go down to the county courthouse, get them to approve me voting, and then return. This was less then an hour before polls closed.

The second and third times, they claimed I was registered out-of-state (I did register there when I turned 18) and would thus need to cancel my out-of-state registration before I could vote. Despite confirming both times that the other state knew I had moved out-of-state and they had canceled my registration, the challenge prevented my vote from counting.

I can't remember the excuse the other times; except for the first time, I did vote a provisional ballets, but every time they've been ruled to not be valid. You would think have a driver's license in a state and being a registered voter would be pretty good proof that's the state of your residency, you would think paying taxes there (the state the accuse me of living in has a mutual tax agreement), you would think buying a house would be a good indication, but no. About the only thing worse is despite living in this state for over a decade, if I take classes I still have to pay out-of-state tuition (for those interested, I originally enrolled as out-of-state, so now until I get a waiver which I have to renew every term, I have to pay out-of-state tuition. Had I started a job the day before classes started, no such requirement. When you own a home, have children enrolled in school, etc its quite infuriating to be forced to pay out-of-state tuition).

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[CanHasDIY]

Most all states that I know of that require ID for voting, offer said IDs free of charge.

There is no such thing. The ID itself may not have a cost (outside the tax dollars used to fund the program), but the process of acquisition is definitely not cost-free.

A person has to go register to vote....getting an ID isn't any more difficult.

Voter registrations, at least in my area, require nothing more than printing the form and mailing it to the city clerk, postage paid. Getting a photo ID made requires a trip to the DMV/equivalant gov't office, which then involves scheduling, transportation costs, et. al.

If someone can't put forth a little effort to vote, then they're probably not interested enough to research, listen and made an informed vote either.

Many of those who do vote, don't do research nor make an informed decision: Just look at the sheer volume of folks who vote for Democrats or Republicans, thinking that if they continue to vote for the same two parties something will magically change.

Forcing people to pay for an ID (a.k.a. a poll tax, which BTW is illegal) will do nothing to change that.

At some point...you have to decide if it is important enough to you to put forth the effort. It isn't convenient to me either, but on voting day, if a weekday...I get up earlier than normal, so that I have plenty of time to get to the polls (usually early there isn't much a line) and wait in line if need be...vote and still get to work on time.

What does accusing the poor of being lazy, which is what you've done here, have to do with voter ID requirements?



Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with ID requirements if they serve some sort of useful and obvious purpose, but considering that the biggest proponents of these new voter ID laws can't seem to muster a single scrap of evidence to show there is a need (I think the latest numbers show fraudulent votes make up less than .03% of the total vote, but I'll admit that's here-say at this point), this crap seems like an expensive solution looking for a problem.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[CanHasDIY]

>>>there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

I agree 100%! I want to be able to vote for Mitt Romney at least 5 times, and these damn voter-ID laws are making that difficult. Curses. Foiled again.

The only way you would be able to do such a thing, would be through absentee balloting...

Which photo ID requirements do nothing to stop.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[cayenne8]

Sorry...but this is nothing new.

If people don't keep up with what is required...well, tough luck. Gotta take some personal responsibility here.

I wasn't able to vote one year for same reasons, I made sure I was in compliance every year after that....

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[dywolf]

and the other side always trots out the "republicans hate old and colored people and are trying to keep them from voting" boilerplate everytime, cause those groups always only vote one way, and repubs are the only ones trying to manipulate things.

and all the same arguments were given when districts began to require voter registration.

If you want to move to an e-vote system, and since everyone is so in love with technology uninformed people will keep pushing for it, then yes, you need proof of ID. period.

ike many other things moving to high-technological, right now it may not be a big problem. but the move to high-tech has a way of magnifying the problem, making it easier to exploit.

example: High Frequency Trading. They do nothing illegal. You could do the exact same thing without the computers. They just do it much faster and much easier because the computer has a capacity and speed that a person does not, and at that level it starts to become a problem.

right now, voter fraud, minor issue. move it to high tech, internet voting....ya. it's gonna be a big issue.

requiring ID in some form just makes sense, period. More so if the system ever actually does move online. An illegal activity should not be ignored just because it is percieved to be minor.

State ID cards are free. You only pay money when you get that special ID known as a "Drivers License". As for requiring no time, that's BS. There are certain things that if you wish to perform in this country you have the responsibilty to make happen. Voting is no different. You want to X the box, you have to take the time to register and prove yourself. the easier you make it to abuse, the more it will be abused.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[dywolf]

Mayor Daley and the chicago cemetaries are well established as supporting the democratic party.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[centre21]

There shouldn't be a requirement for ID? Allow me to share my experience in the last election and show EXACTLY why there needs to be some ID checking:

http://brecheez.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-we-dont-need-to-hack-voting.html

Not to mention in the same year when my wife went to vote she was handed her mother's voting materials. When she brought this up to the Election Judge they just said, "Oh don't worry about it, no one really checks anyway." Theoretically, my wife could have voted in her mother's name, left the building, had lunch, returned to the polling place and then voted under her own name.

I demand that they check my ID when I go to the Polling Place, why wouldn't I want them to make sure that I am who I say I am?

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Reziac]

How do I know who dead people voted for? I've poll-watched. Somehow there are more dead people voting in strongly Dem districts, tho I suspect one might actually blame the unions first and foremost.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[donutz]

"The solution isn't to make it even harder to vote, but to get more people to vote!"

It's not that simple though. You don't just want to increase turnout percentages, you want people to know what they're voting for. Stupid votes are worse than no votes.

Re:This is basically how US elections work

[Anonymous Coward]

What people think and do while listening to or viewing the electronic telecommunications systems controlled by artificial intelligence is what "it" wants them to think and do. You will think and then do, i.e., vote the way "it" wants you to vote! You will help, and are helping, to create a system to not only verify the identities of individuals for the purpose of voting the way "it" wants you to vote, but for the purpose of buying and selling in the online MARK-et-place.

teenagers in their bedrooms

[mynamestolen]

yeah right. As if I'm ever gonna trust a computer network as a voting system. Better spending my time advocating for real democracy. ie proportional representation, not that FPP junk that UK and USA have.

Re:teenagers in their bedrooms

[crutchy]

i'm gunna vote for the first candidate to don a darth vader costume for the rest of his life, and to change the form of government to a galactic empire. of course i don't give a shit about the old guy with the self-inflicted wrinkly face

Inform/edit

[Culture20]

Inform on your neighbors and family! Er, I mean edit their wiki pages to provide evidence of their political affiliation - for the good of the voting process.

open source governance? validating neighbours?

[mister2au]

This is a joke, right?

Representative governments work because people has better things to do than ALL be involved with EVERYTHING.

That is a sure way destroy an economy and then destroy a social by being controlled by vocal minority wackos - in fact, I'd suggest that some people would view current governments as already being too driven by vocal minorities.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Actually the biggest reason we don't all vote on every last issue is that we can't all live in one city and meet in one place. The Internet fixes that problem. Yes there are other problems, but don't discount the ability to have your say in things that matter! Look at the US presidency, it is a sham bought by corporate money, rarely is either candidate any good, but you have no choice in the matter. Wouldn't it be nicer to have your say in things that matter to you, issue by issue.

Just to open your mind a bit: If a citizen likes the idea of representative democracy in this system, they can merely shift their voting rights to someone they trust. In this way, people who are trusted become your elected official.

By no means do I think this would be a perfect government. But it would be a different government and if it played out for a few decades in just a simulated form, lots of the problems could be ironed out, or the idea could be scrapped altogether. One thing I theorize it is even nice for is piggybacking an existing government. The people say what they want, and you can check against what elected officials are doing. If elected officials are going against the direct democracy people and there are enough direct democracy people, the elected official can be voted out.

There is so much to this and it is so interesting of a topic that it shouldn't just be written off.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the point that Metagovernment/open source governance principles are not entirely incompatible with existing structures. You could use them to run a political party designed to more directly represent the people.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[iluvcapra]

How do you prevent people from selling their voting rights? I assume this information would have to be public, since it's required to validate electors; since it's public, it can be transacted. You can say that you'd make it "illegal," but enforcement of such things is extremely difficult, particularly when some people, like party bosses, ward heelers, employers, religious leaders, etc. are in a position to put considerable duress on voters. That's why voting is secret, simply making it illegal to discriminate against voice votes is impractical.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[clarkkent09]

What is it with this idea that everyone has an obligation to vote and that making voting as easy as possible is automatically a good thing? I think it is immoral to vote when you don't understand the first thing about the candidates or the issues involved, and if you don't have time to get educated about it, then you should sit it out. At least picking a representative has the advantage that any candidate who gets as far as a major election has by then been at least somewhat vetted by the party organization, media etc and should in theory have more of a clue than the 'average' voter. Having EVERYBODY vote on whether the "2011 US bilateral investment treaty with Uruguay" should be signed or not, what percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums should be deductible from the tax return, and every other one of the million issues that come up to the legislators every year, would make great comedy but horrible governance.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm embarrassed reading your posts. You're like an overly sincere college freshman who thinks his simple & obvious idea (hey, we should vote on the internet! Nobody's thought of that before!) is genius that's going to change the world. You talk about "opening" other people's minds, maybe you should listen to the very reasonable objections.

mister2au makes a good point about representational democracy. For certain issues (higher sales tax for a local school, gays being allowed into the military) your average person on the street will have a working knowledge and be able to give a proper vote. Whether this is ideal is questionable: California voter initiatives commonly allow state & local issues to be decided by direct votes, and I'd say that many of the decisions are bone-headed and overly influenced by lobbyists.

However, what about the proposition to alter the fire district along Wilson Street, so that zone 7 is given a 20% larger territory to cover, without any change in fire fighting budgeting? Your average citizen will have no idea, and would have to do a lot of work to come up with even a half-informed decision. There are millions of such issues on a local, state, and federal level. Putting these up for direct vote wouldn't be practical, inevitably these issues would be decided by cranks & special interests.

Before you talk about re-writing democracy, you should attend a city council meeting or two.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[ShanghaiBill]

Representative governments work because people has better things to do than ALL be involved with EVERYTHING.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We could have a blend of direct and representitive democracy: you could vote directly on issues you care about, and leave other issues to your elected representitive. Your rep's vote would be diminished by the fraction of her constituents that voted directly.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[TubeSteak]

What is it with this idea that everyone has an obligation to vote and that making voting as easy as possible is automatically a good thing? I think it is immoral to vote when you don't understand the first thing about the candidates or the issues involved, and if you don't have time to get educated about it, then you should sit it out.

The idea that "everyone has an obligation to vote" and "that making voting as easy as possible is automatically a good thing" are two entirely separate ideas.

The obligation question is a philosophical one that reasonable people can disagree on.
But considering that the boogeyman of malicious in-person voting fraud is almost non-existent,
what other serious reasons are there to prevent voting from being as easy as possible?
Why is it a bad thing? Because ignorant people might vote? We have representatives to filter out the derp.

By cramming the two issues together, you do yourself and everyone else a disservice.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[martin-boundary]

It's important that EVERYBODY votes, even if they don't know what they're voting for. Why? Because if we let a small elite (^H^H^H informed people only) have the privilege of voting, then these people will control the world. However, in that direction lies empire and slavery.

It's much better if anyone who wants to push an agenda has to convince millions of other people, of which most aren't listening or don't care. It makes it less certain that they'll be able to push through everything or anything that they want.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Hognoxious]

It's much better if anyone who wants to push an agenda has to convince millions of other people, of which most aren't listening or don't care. It makes it less certain that they'll be able to push through everything or anything that they want.

Agreed.

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh and Fox News existed for real!

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[VortexCortex]

They keep making BS laws about Copyright, Patents, Data Security, etc. By your logic, the legislators really shouldn't, because the don't know fuck all about technology. Actually, they don't know shit about anything except what a lobbyist tells them...

The founding father of the USA were smart, but the overestimated us. A Democratic-Republic only works if the majority of the senate isn't corrupt, and if the majority of the citizens voting aren't ignorant gits voting along party lines... In short, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

However, ANYTHING is better than what we have now. (Yes, Anything!)

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[TheRaven64]

The best suggestion I've seen is a form of hierarchical delegated voting. Each individual can delegate his or her vote to someone else, either on every issue, or on issues within a broad category (e.g. everything related to defence, foreign policy, science, whatever). People can also delegate votes that have been delegate to them and you can withdraw your delegation with no notice, but you then can't delegate to someone else for a week. This means that people with a lot of votes delegate to them can work as politicians do now for as long as they retain the support of their constituency (which almost certainly won't be geographically based), but can't easily abuse their position. It also means that wedge issues become irrelevant. You can delegate your vote to a generic Republican or Democrat candidate on, for example, gay marriage or abortion, but then to someone with opinions that reflect your own on other issues.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[bcrowell]

Having EVERYBODY vote on whether the "2011 US bilateral investment treaty with Uruguay" should be signed or not, what percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums should be deductible from the tax return, and every other one of the million issues that come up to the legislators every year, would make great comedy but horrible governance.

If you click through from TFA to the site's home page, there's a reasonably coherent statement of the fundamental principles they have in mind. They want a system where one is "free to delegate one's own and one's received votes to whoever one chooses; and to withdraw delegation at any time." So presumably I would delegate my vote on anything related to the U.S.'s foreign policy with Latin America to someone I think is an expert.

But there are plenty of other things to object to in the slashdot summary and metagovernment's stated philosophy.

As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance

"Feudal" has a definite meaning, involving a hierarchical political structure based on inheritance, a system of mutual obligations, and being tied to the land. Using it as a generic term of disapproval is dumb. I haven't seen any evidence that we're undergoing any "move away" from "leader-based forms of governance." If we were, it would violate metagovernment's statement of principles, since delegation would inevtitably create leaders -- people to whom many voters had delegated their votes.

free to vote on every issue of his/her concern, regardless of geography or scale

This sounds groovy. I live in Fullerton, California. Can the entire population of China vote on whether to institute a one-child policy in Fullerton?

But anyway, in general it should be pretty clear that a political system such as the one in the US, which was designed in the 18th century, is probably not optimal for the 21st century. I like the idea of delegation, which for example would break the back of the two-party system. On a smaller scale, I work at a college that has a few thousand employees, and the processes by which it's run, although they include many republican forms, suck mightily, mainly because people are too lazy to study the issues and engage in reasoned debate. Having a debate on a wiki, for example, would be a huge step up in deliberative quality from what we do now.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Immoral is kind of a strong word. You should take a chill pill. Also what's the point of learning what all these politicians stand for when their actions are different than their words. I also doubt you research every person on the ballot.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making the vote difficult to get has been key to controlling poor or unprivileged populations throughout history. Look up "Jim Crow" laws, and look up the ver good reference mentioned on Wikipedia:

      b J. Morgan Kousser.The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974

After the Civil War, many states, especially Southern states, tried passing very restrictive laws on voter registration to discourage black voters and protect local whites, especially the land owners. I'll leave the similar but distinct abuses committed against women voters as prt of the Suffragette movement for your own research.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to bribe a few hundred congressmen and senators than individual voters.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, what about the proposition to alter the fire district along Wilson Street, so that zone 7 is given a 20% larger territory to cover, without any change in fire fighting budgeting? Your average citizen will have no idea, and would have to do a lot of work to come up with even a half-informed decision. There are millions of such issues on a local, state, and federal level. Putting these up for direct vote wouldn't be practical, inevitably these issues would be decided by cranks & special interests.

There are many ways to implement a direct democracy. Consider one with the following features:
-Votes are always reversible except in special circumstance
-Meta-policies can be instituted that set rules for the voting system (for example a meta-policy could say that for a policy to be reversed 60% of the votes must be in favor of it so that policies that require lots or resources to implement or remove do not frequently change)

I think such a direct democracy would address you concerns because:
1. If a special interest group takes control of an issue that no one notices at the time but it has effects that a larger segment of the population notices and disapproves of they will swarm in and reverse the vote.
2. Meta-policies could prevent the creation of invalid propositions (i.e. propositions that couldn't be implemented without changes to financial policy that are not included in it).

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours?

[dywolf]

Only if the voters are stupid is it wrong.

One of the first responsibilities in any democracy is self-education. And one of the primary traits is integrity (not voting if not qualified).

The biggest problem?

[WarSpiteX]

Is the biggest problem truly voter identification, rather than voter education?

On another note, once people don't have leaders to blame, will we see increased societal polarization? Right now, hippie liberal wiener in Boston isn't blamed for abortion laws, just as frothing at the mouth nutjob conservative in New Mexico isn't blamed for gun laws. What sort of societal conflict would we see if neighbours, or at least neighbouring states, disagree on divisive issues?

Re:The biggest problem?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

It could definitely be a problem if everyone voting or discussing laws had their real name to them as opposed to an anonymous ID#. Even more so, the problem gets deeper than that though: What if a minority find itself in a position where it is oppressed by the majority? Would that minority get violent? The original idea behind US democracy was that the guy in charge changes every 4 years as to not need violent regime change.

The key is, that making a direct democracy has many problems. You don't just institute it without exploring all the problems. But first creating a simulation of a direct democracy would be a great way to see what are all the problems with it. I don't think exploring it as an experiment is that bad of an idea. Just don't let any country officially download the ap for their government until it has been given like a 20-30 year analysis.

Re:The biggest problem?

[Trepidity]

I strongly agree with that view. There is a lot of emphasis on getting vote counts correct, when there is substantial evidence that various misunderstandings or divergence in information can have a much bigger effect on elections than the quite small amount of voter fraud. It's not at all unusual on a given issue for 20-40% of the population (sometimes more!) to have factually incorrect views of an issue: not just disagreeing on policy, or being wrong on a politically-charged or subjective question, but just having the wrong information to start with. With those kinds of error rates, hand-wringing over "hanging chads" and such is like trying to get your measurement error down to +/-0.001% in a scientific experiment where your methodology is suspect and you're not quite sure what the material involved actually is. Yeah, you'll get a precise measurement, but of what?

Re:The biggest problem?

[WarSpiteX]

Great point.

I was thinking something along the lines of the disaster that is the California proposition system (yay, no more tax hikes! that worked out great...), but I think you hit the spot better.

Re:The biggest problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

(yay, no more tax hikes! that worked out great...)

Spending more than was received in taxes, of course, had nothing whatsoever to do with that. And you'd be a fool to think otherwise!

Re:The biggest problem?

[WarSpiteX]

This isn't a left vs right pissing match. This is an example of how a great mass of uninformed voters shot themselves in their collective foot by freezing property taxes until the property has been sold.

Re:The biggest problem?

[TubeSteak]

The original idea behind US democracy was that the guy in charge changes every 4 years as to not need violent regime change.

You need to brush up on your history.
There were no term limits when the government was founded.
Further, the people writing the Constitution knew the dangers of unlimited terms and chose not to set limits.

George Washington gracefully resigned and set the precedent for two terms as the limit...
but for 164 years this precedent was not binding until the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951.
The 22nd Amendment was conveniently ratified years after FDR died at the beginning of his 4th term as President.

Re:The biggest problem?

[martin-boundary]

Except that if you don't do the hand-wringing over 0.001%, then why should you bother doing it over 1% or even 30%? If one believes that 40% of voters have factually incorrect views, how much does an error of 30% really matter to one anyway?

There's nothing wrong with getting the best possible measurement error in a scientific experiment. It means you've removed one additional source of error, and that's always a good thing even if sometimes it is not enough.

Re:The biggest problem?

[Stiletto]

Maybe someone in Boston shouldn't be making (or voting on) laws that affect someone in New Mexico. Different cultures, different values, different communities. Hell, people in NYC shouldn't be making laws for the people upstate. This problem would be solved if more governance was local, and less at the federal/state level.

We don't need "Open Source" governance, we need to let communities govern themselves.

Re:The biggest problem?

[Stiletto]

If it was such a bad decision, then go put a proposition on the ballot to repeal it. Surely it will pass in a landslide!

Re:The biggest problem?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I think we have a miscommunication. I made no mention of term limits. I was just stating that voting allows non violent regime change. If I meant to infer term limits, I would have said that the guy changes every 8 years.

Re:The biggest problem?

[WarSpiteX]

You're just adding to my point about uneducated voters =/

I ran across this very problem too

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

I eventually want to write a piece of software which allows for direct democracy. Everyone who has a computer or goes to the library can vote on bills, and tell their figure head officials how to act. You still need people as acting officials because sticking a robot in the UN is kinda silly for example. This isn't to change the US government, but if you have a piece of software that acts as direct democracy with customizable features for a constitution, any time some people overthrow their oppressive government, they could just go,"Hey, lets install direct democracy."

Anyway the problems I've run across is:
You need to authenticate users manually, so maybe the authenticator cards are good for people so stolen passwords can't stop you.

But the bigger problem will be people doing MTM attacks and changing votes, or maybe hacking the system from out of the country, or buying citizen's voting rights.

The main solution for some problems is:
You need your own closed Internet in your country, a secure web, where people from outside the Internet can't log in.

Sure sometimes someone will tap into the line on the telephone pole for MTM, but if you stop it, they get prison time.

You gotta limit what a standard citizen's client can get to also, or people could just route from the internet to client to into the system.

There are a WHOLE HOST of problems though... more than I can even imagine. There is just about no greater honeypot to a hacker than to become a leader of a country. The way I'm going to go about it involves not working on the security issues at first, but just working on the direct democracy system, so when the security issues can be addressed, the system could be altered or rewritten when it happens. Just having something as proof of concept is better than nothing at all.

The street based community wiki seems pretty smart. It was better than my plan to start locally and get people to sign up in person, and for us to hand them a password.

Probs is I have a few projects on my plate before I go back to this system again. If someone wants to start an open source form of government, I'm sure some country down the line will have a revolution and might be interested. So any work done here will be of benefit in the future.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[medcalf]

The software problems aren't the problems. Direct democracies fail because they inevitably result in mob rule. That and attacking Syracuse.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem may be 'pure' democracy. If like minded people gain the reins of power, our current US Constitution, and the tradition of Western Democracy, so far has put constraints and restraints on the winners such that they do not get to act in a 'winner takes all' fashion.

Between conservatives and liberals, I don't know what scares me most: the possibility of the side I identify with gaining total control of the 3 US Banches of government, or the side I don't identify with.

Which leads me to basis of my real fear: the masses. Masses often act like mobs, or the lowest common denominator. (Other than being low and common, I have no issue with the LCD).

A general rule of thumb, is that in order to appeal to large numbers of people, the idea or at least the image needs to be simple and lacking sophistication.

The proper response to my assertion would be for someone to whack me upside the head as they scoot buy on a skateboard, and one of their buds hollers "Awesome!"

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[icebraining]

If your solution depends on keeping a 200 million people LAN closed from the outside, I can tell you right now that it won't work.

But how is MITM a problem? Issue everyone a smartcard (many countries already did it) and a $20 card reader with PIN, then use the card to sign the vote, and encrypt it before sending it. There, MITM avoided.

Unfortunately, there are much bigger problems with online voting.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Exactly like I said, there are many problems in it. My friend and I are going to be starting one in 2 years. We tried back in 2008, but I told him we should just give up because we'll never compete with Digg.com. ^^

There are many versions of direct democracy that don't all involve people voting directly on laws.

For instance there is a direct democracy that merely influences a representative democracy in place. This is where I'm going with my friend in the future. It will be a discussion group based on political ideas of what is important for the state. Then elected officials will be examined if they voted for similar ideas. The guys who go against what you want, you can vote out. In its purest form, it is just active education, which is desperately needed for voters. If every voter knew what they wanted and their elected official's track record, they could know if they want to reelect them.

Sadly today, most people get their education from TV campaign ads, which due to polling the local people, quite often tell them what they want to hear then the politician does what the campaign contributor who paid for the ads wants.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

I am at a total loss as to what your threat model is. Essentially all of the security issues you discuss disappear if you use SSL. If you want to be really sure that people don't have their passwords stolen or guessed, then use two-factor auth (either rely on their cell phones for the cheap option or physical tokens if you can afford a few dollars for each user). As the siblings point out, security issues remain, but they don't seem to be what you think they are.

While online voting and direct democracy seem like questionable ideas at best, the United States at least is badly in need of a platform for meaningful political dialogue. No official decisions need to be made by the site; the citizens need to be more educated about the issues, and, importantly, understand why there's disagreement (i.e. that 50%+ of the country isn't just misled idiots).

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[cpu6502]

>>>You still need people as acting officials because sticking a robot in the UN is kinda silly for example.

The Animatrix tells me this is a very, very bad idea.

And for more-direct democracy, I'd favor modifying the House of Representatives so that, rather than taking a count of the ayes & nays, the Speaker looks at the result of an internet weekly vote by the People. That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling). The Senate would continue to function as it does now, as a representative body for the States.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[phantomfive]

Which leads me to basis of my real fear: the masses.

Then you're a democrat. That is the current irrational fear democrats are falling to.
Republicans are falling to a different fear, that Obama is the anti-christ and will lead America into servitude to the UN or something.

Why people insist on finding something irrational to fear, I have no idea.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're a democrat. That is the current irrational fear democrats are falling to.

No, he's realistic. I don't see how anyone with a brain can have confidence in the masses.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[iluvcapra]

That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling).

If we don't trust voters to pick the right people to rep them, why would we trust them to make the right decision on individual bills? It's the same system with the same problems, you're just changing the kind of questions you're posing to it. Why is polling on bills better than polling on representatives? Are people better at judging bills than judging people? That's pretty much a complete inversion of the founders' vision, not that that's a bad thing, it's just a very radical idea, with very little reason to it.

Voting is a small part of passing laws. The most important part of the process is the writing -- he who frames the question controls the process.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[bigtreeman]

The more points of contact the higher your level of trust and especially by having associations with many different but maybe also interconnected identifiers.

We are well located by our cable connection or ADSL connection which was tested to our house when we moved to this address. If I use a mobile dongle, it is associated with a mobile number which can be located by the provider. Even better if I have a GPS in my phone that I tether to my laptop, or if I was younger I could read my mobile phone.

It is interesting to cross reference your location with neighbours, my postman knows where I live, a few companies have delivered stuff to our home, by bank account statement and my work pay advice is posted to my home.

Using my laptop web cam I could compare my license photo with my face. Holding your palm in front of your web cam could provide another form of biometric identification, iris or finger print scanning.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

Digg had a big problem http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/ this was obvious enough if you weren't conservative an alternative would have been welcomed by many.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me again how many voters believe the President is a secret Muslim born in Kenya? Or how about the people who think that Ronald Reagan always lowered taxes? Or how about this one, how about the folks that still believe that there were WMDs found in Iraq?

Yeah, those are the folks I want to be voting on every single issue. And I'm sure you can find wackos on the other side as well. What's scary, is that those beliefs are relatively mainstream.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[martin-boundary]

Quite right. If the stupid mob didn't waste their time ruling, they could get on with invading the whole Mediterranean!

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

If a person has a computer or can go to the library they can surely get state issued ID. Direct democracy is a stupid idea.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[misexistentialist]

There are still towns run by direct democracy, and they are more characterized by extreme budget restraint than by chaotic looting. In fact to the extent that our "representatives" are anything more than agents of "mobs"--that is to say corporate gangsters --they are demagogues, encouraging and enabling the worst impulses of the people.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[cpu6502]

>>>>>That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling).
>>
>>If we don't trust voters to pick the right people to rep them, why would we trust them to make the right decision on individual bills?

The person in the House of Representatives is a loyal servant of the corporations... bought-and-paid-for through campaign donations & loyal to serving corporate interest (like sucking money from taxpayers for bailouts). The ~200 million at-large citizens are not corporate puppets, so they will vote in their best interests. Such as voting "no" on the TARP bill in 2008.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[atisss]

But the bigger problem will be people doing MTM attacks and changing votes, or maybe hacking the system from out of the country, or buying citizen's voting rights.

"Man The Middle" attack? Dude, that sounds scary

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[Anonymous Coward]

so they will vote in their best interests

Just like they voted in their best interests when it came time to vote the congresscritter into office in the first place?

Oh wait, that was iluvcapra's whole fucking point. Way to READ and UNDERSTAND the post you were responding to.

Re:I ran across this very problem too

[iluvcapra]

The ~200 million at-large citizens are not corporate puppets, so they will vote in their best interests

According to Gallup polling, about 2/3ds of these at-large citizens believe in angels.

What is your basis for claiming individuals vote in their best interest?

Trust or mistrust propagation?

[c0lo]

I haven't RTFA (yet), but one problem sprang into my mind: assume that a group of people make the false claim of them being neighbours. Assume someone will contest the fact...

The question is: without "real world checks" (e.g. one is too far away to actually do it), who are to be trusted: the contesters or the claimants?

There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Cornwallis]

It is nothing more than a digital version of a Tammany Hall machine.

Jezum H. Crow, paper ballots work fine. You're a solution in search of a problem.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is a significant portion of the population isn't voting. Paper ballots are inconvenient and no one wants to wait in line for half an hour to place a vote. It should be just as easy to vote for the politician you support as to vote for the contestants on talent shows.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[techno-vampire]

I've helped run polls many times, and I've never seen waiting lines that long. Once, there was a line of last-minute voters as we came up to closing time. As head of the precinct, I assured the voters that the polls would not close until everybody who got in line before closing time had voted, because that's the law. I don't think that we closed more than five minutes late, and that was probably the longest line I've ever seen at a poll.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[cpu6502]

My state uses scantrons. It has the advantages of both electronic voting (a quick tally by computer) and paper (hard to rig the election & provides an official tally in the event of a recount).

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[deesine]

People not voting is the symptom, not the problem.

To want voting be more like American Idol than Local DMV is closer to the problem, but still only a symptom.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped voting in the previous presidential election and do not intend to start again. Many of us are disenfranchised by the current duopoly system. We cannot in any good conscience vote for Romney or Obama, and Americans are collectively not smart enough to vote for any other parties to any significant degree. I've been voting for 3rd parties since the 1980's, but let's face it: in my life time there will never be a third party candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for a R or a D just means more of the same loss of civil rights, corruption, and fiscal incompetence that we've seen so far. The third party candidates are often wacky single-issue candidates that probably shouldn't be in power. That leaves... nobody.

Until we change our voting system to stop favoring a duopoly, or something changes about the national psyche so that people think past the two candidates they see on duh tee vee, it's simply not worth my time to vote in presidential or midterm elections, as I am utterly and completely politically disenfranchised.

By the way, where's the candidate who has a PhD in a STEM field? There isn't one. They are all lawyers or once in a while "businessmen".

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[sumdumass]

I've only had a long wait once voting. They precincts changed and a lot of people showed to the wrong place. Strange thing is, the change was to divide two precincts into a third in order to speed the process of voting up.

It was about a 20-25 minute wait for 3 or 4 people in front of me to find that they were at the wrong place and could either use a provisional ballot, go to the right place, or go directly to the county elections commission and vote. Of course each one of them had to ask for directions to one of the alternative places.

Other then that, since 1989, I have not waited more then 5 minutes in line before signing in and voting.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[sumdumass]

What exactly do you expect a third party president to do when there is not major players in the house or senate?

You have been voting since the 80's, maybe you should check out President Carter's miserable failure of a presidency just before then and see what happens when you do not have the support of a significant portion of congress- (and yes, Carter had a democrat congress).

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless those people are being prevented from voting by overly burdensome requirements or an inability to get to the polling stations, I say good riddance. If they aren't energized or interested enough to to go out and vote, what makes you think that they're interested enough to research how to cast their votes?

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should check out President Carter's miserable failure of a presidency just before then and see what happens when you do not have the support of a significant portion of the military-industrial complex.

FTFY.

Reagan was clearly with the crypto-fascists, and we all know his Presidency was the greatest ever right?

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[sumdumass]

Actually, you should pay more attention to Carter's presidency in this regard. Reagan had support of the democrats and most republicans. Carter had neither for the majority of his goals and was a failure of a president.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this...

[Reziac]

In Montana, I often had to wait an hour or more to vote, even with a bunch of voting machines at the polling place -- yes, the lines were that long. In California, I've never had to wait more than two minutes, despite the polling places being no larger and the population being 40x as large.

Maybe it's more a matter of relative voter apathy. :/

not sure

[phantomfive]

The way this works (as I understand it, simplified), is people eventually notice sock-puppets, un-trust them, and then the sock-puppets live off in their own un-trusted world that no one trusts.

That might work on a fairly neutral topic, but imagine you notice there are sock-puppets who agree with your opinion on abortion, are you going to un-trust them, or are you going to create more yourself? After all, it's a matter of life-or-death, what are a few bogus accounts when such an important principle (insert any principle you believe strongly) is on the line??

This plan doesn't seem to account that people would be willing to accept sock-puppets that agree with them. Also doesn't seem to realize that I have better things to do with my time than constantly update my 'trusted' list.

Re:not sure

[Anonymous Coward]

The way this works (as I understand it, simplified), is people eventually notice sock-puppets, un-trust them, and then the sock-puppets live off in their own un-trusted world that no one trusts.

Isn't this what one of the major MMOs does to thwart bot runners? Warden bot-checks suspect, suspect fails check (ie, is charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced), then is removed to "prison-land" aka untrusted world. Free to roam with fellow cheaters/hackers. Where they are guilty until proven innocent.

I can't remember the specific game, but it parallels current events IRL here in the USA. Corporation buys Lobbyist/Senator/Congressman. Lobbyist/Senator/Congressman codifies corporate non-compliance into law. Bill gets passed. Newly defined suspects of non-compliance are apprehended, tried, convicted, and sentenced to untrusted-land (aka prison).

I want to cry, but I'm out of tears. Sadly things like this require the usage of the Box of Last Resorts. Sadder yet is that most in the USA are so pussified and indoctrinated they can't even imagine how that last box is supposed to be used.

Off the hook

[Anonymous Coward]

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

Re:Off the hook

[Anonymous Coward]

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

'es been livin' down in th' muck in th' dungeon 'neath 'is master's castle.

Re:Off the hook

[Sulphur]

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

'es been livin' down in th' muck in th' dungeon 'neath 'is master's castle.

Are you nearly finished cleaning my moat. It stinks down there.

Moving away from leaders?

[artor3]

Please. If something like this were to catch on (it won't), we'd still have leaders. Only instead of politicians with known checks on their powers, they'd be the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world, convincing hordes of useful idiots to do as they say. At least with a Republic, we have a few layers of insulation between the "ditto-heads" and the government.

The dream lives on!

[fm6]

Leaderless government! Yeah right.

Not a new idea. That's precisely how the U.S. Presidency was supposed to work: Congress would define policies (by consensus, political parties were considered uncool) and implemented by a chief executive (also chosen by consensus, hence our weird, unwieldy electoral college) who was not seen as a leader. That's why he's called a "president", because in 1789 the word didn't have connotations of leadership — it just meant "presiding officer". No longer true, of course.

Government by consensus isn't going to happen as long as people are contentious and combative in defending their own views and attacking those they disagree with. A good government takes the ongoing nonviolent civil war that is social discourse in a free society (particularly on Slashdot) and uses it to synthesize a laws and policies the governed can mostly live with.

Re:The dream lives on!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution wasn't written to fix problems with the British government. It was written to fix the Articles of Confederation. One of the largest of these problems was that the executive branch wasn't strong enough.

Re:The dream lives on!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is not at all true.

George Washington was widely perceived as being elected the leader of the US.
Electoral college does not derive from old ideas of consensus.
If you're completely ignorant on a subject, please don't post about it unless it's to ask questions.

Re:The dream lives on!

[sumdumass]

That's a little disingenuous. The entire reason we became a country in our own right is because we had problems with the British government and fixed them. The US constitution is riddled with hints of that too like quartering of troops in peacetime, searches, ability to tax, limitations on government by spelling out what it can do and what is left to the people and so on.

Most of the original amendments in the 12 amendments bill of rights (even though only 10 was ratified as part of the original bill of rights and the original second amendment was eventually implemented and ratified in 1992 as the 27th amendment) was specifically addressing issues we had with the British government's reign over us.

Video Records

[Anonymous Coward]

What if we take a video records in addition to quantified data. A person makes a short clip in the voting booth saying, "My name is Joe Schmo and I vote for So-and-So". It would be an extra layer of protection from the votes getting cooked.

define:racist

[gd2shoe]

Oh it has nothing to do with identity. It has to do with politics.

It's truly unfortunate, but the word "racist" has developed two distinct and separate definitions. Only one of them has anything to do with race.

Racist (n)
1) Someone who unfairly dislikes or discriminates based on race. May or may not be a white male discriminating against a black person. May be a black person discriminating against a mexican national, for example.
2) A republican, or someone of republican leanings.

Do note how the Republicans started to co-opt the tea-party movement, and immediately there were accusations of racism. This is, of course, by definition.

(end sarcasm)

Re:define:racist

[sumdumass]

Well, maybe that would be true if you closed your eyes, ignored reality, and equated the actions of a couple individuals as representative of an entire group that have something different in common. But that would make you suffer the same logic failure that racists seem to suffer.

Wouldn't work in my neighborhood

[drdrgivemethenews]

I've only seen three of my neighbors often enough to identify them in a lineup, and they all live in the same house.

My hipster meter overflowed

[Anonymous Coward]

God, so much douchebaggery in that summary. And nobody is moving towards any of that hipster bullshit, that's the kind of crap the potheads and criminal-embracers believe in.

I need to go ride my fixed gear bike while smoking a joint and hanging out with some crusty hikers to get a handle on this.

Re:My hipster meter overflowed

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job buddy--well practiced on your stereotypes. Now why don't you just go & do that. Relax, take a long puff, & learn a little bit about your imagined others in the process. Don't worry, you won't be excluded assuming you don't threaten to kill anyone. Douchebaggery indeed.

getting an ID should be FREE

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be, could be, isn't...

That's at least a part of the reason it can be argued that ID is an unacceptable burden for those in the lowest income bracket, especially if they're living in a rural area and have to travel to get ID AND to vote.

If I show up to the precinct where I'm registered, with or without an ID, and I know my registered name and address, and my signature matches the one on my card, then I HAVE reasonably authenticated myself.

That's why there are so few cases of voter fraud against individual voters. It's not worth the time, the effort or the risk to try to falsely register, show up at all the various locations and try to remember your various identities in order to carry cast a few fraudulent ballots.

It's far more likely that GOP staffers will try to game the system as they did recently in Michigan.

Reasons?

[zidium]

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be).

Would you mind naming one reason outside of the tired excuse that some mythical poor person with no ID will be so disenfranchised because s/he had no idea how to obtain a free state ID card?

Re:Reasons?

[WarSpiteX]

Unfortunately it's not so much a matter of the ID itself as the onerous conditions that the Republican party wants to put on getting voter ID. Poor people don't always have a residence they've been at for a year along with three bills and other forms of ID.

Re:Reasons?

[cpu6502]

My state has those same Voter ID conditions and it's legislature is 75% Democrat. So I can't really blame the repubs can I?

Re:Reasons?

[sumdumass]

I'm not really sure what you are talking about. In my state, all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate and a social security card.

Perhaps the problem is more that your state is requiring too much crap to get an ID?

Re:Reasons?

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I was married, I bought a house. When my wife moved in, we didn't change any of the bills. When it came time to register my step-son for school, the local district refused. We got into a situation where we were being threatened to be prosecuted for not registering him and the district refusing to register. A lawyer said yes, we could sue and win, but it could take years for everything to be settled and in the mean time my step-son wouldn't be attending school and would be falling behind. Eventually, the district agreed to enroll him, but only if I agreed to cover all costs of education (including part of the salary, building maintenance, etc something they don't even require from out-of-district students). If they do that just for enrolling a child in school, can you imagine what they'll do with voting requirements?

Media manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the fact that most people are ignorant and easily manipulated by the mainstream media? I think this might shift the power from people who (at least) know the issues and do this for a living, to medias that just want to further their agenda. Of course there will be some independent people who will think things through, but they are a minority in my opinion. This might be a reason why representative democracy is better, as long as the representatives are not completely corrupt. Any thoughts?

Re:Media manipulation

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to the problem is require news stations to limit their editorial coverage and just report facts. There is some subjectivity, but making up "news" is not something that should ever be allowable. Funny thing is that Fox News went to court for their right to make up the news as they're not a news station. In a sane nation they would have at least been required to stop pretending to be a news station if they wanted to make things up.

Not to mention barring campaign ads using funding sources other than tax payer dollars. You'd be surprised how quickly that would help. You'd still have lobbyists with power, but it wouldn't be as overwhelming.

Bigger though would be if the other 48 states would follow WA and IA in introducing bipartisan or nonpartisan districting measures. And preferably taking up the top two primary system. It works wonders for making votes count and kicking out the extremist bums in any race with a moderate.

Why so complicated???

[stanlyb]

When the obvious answer in the era of NO PRIVACY AT ALL is actually, to use it in our benefits, and just avoid any privacy when we are voting!!! Then, ah then, there will be no false vote, and no need of complicated authentication system, and encryption, and race with the bad guys.....
So i wonder, why no one wants this pretty simple and easy to implement system?

Re:Why so complicated???

[dywolf]

No false vote?
Pretty sure the peer pressure vote, the vote to please my boss, the vote to seem cool, all count as false votes, having been given for the wrong reasons.

Re:Why so complicated???

[stanlyb]

My experience shows that the evil works best when it is dark.
Or with other words, when the vote is anonymous, then pressure is even bigger, as there is no chance being catch pleasing your boss or whoever else.

Re:Fuck , fuck, fuck, fuck censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

And perhaps this isn't so fucked to most people who would rather not deal with such uncleanliness. Would be sad, but I'm ok with that. If not, I vote to mv to unfilter -1 posts by default. Assuming such a notion as vote carries any weight around here. The reason for this is there are very few -1's & I'd much rather not be "protected" by default from a non-existent nuisance from those who know better than I.

So prove it

[Mr. Underbridge]

Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"

Good point. You just illustrated the problem with ballot security. There's no way to know whether dead people are voting, pr for whom. Therefore, we can all surely agree that ballot security is a good idea, right?

If you think that the grandparent is just a racist thug, then there's only one way to prove him wrong: IDs for voters. And he is right about one thing - everybody has a picture ID. For Chrissakes, a picture ID is required to get a job, and I'm pretty sure it's required to get government benefits, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be on one or the other.

I have to say, it is worth questioning why some groups are dead-set against IDs for voters, considering that it would disenfranchise virtually no one. It's reasonable to question who benefits from ID-less elections, and that it's likely the same ones who are dead-set against requiring IDs. Doesn't require a genius to make that connection.

Seriously, if I need an ID to drive a car and get a job, shouldn't Democracy be worth preserving by simply maintaining its sanctity? If we have to make gov issued IDs free to take away the excuse, then do it.

Re:So prove it

[TapeCutter]

"ID for voters" is common-sense, you want to ensure voters are eligible. OTOH attaching the ID to a particular vote destroys the secret part in what is supposed to be a secret ballot. The inked finger (as used in Iraq) is another good way to ensure people don't vote more than once, but stained fingers do nothing to confirm their eligibility to vote.

Re:So prove it

[zeugma-amp]

"ID for voters" is common-sense, you want to ensure voters are eligible. OTOH attaching the ID to a particular vote destroys the secret part in what is supposed to be a secret ballot.

I don't believe that is what the OP was talking about. The ID is to be able to get the ballot. The ID# is not attached to the ballot at that point.The ballot itself is still secret, but we've validated that the person casting it is eligible to do so.

The inked finger (as used in Iraq) is another good way to ensure people don't vote more than once, but stained fingers do nothing to confirm their eligibility to vote.

Personally, I'm all for that as well.

Re:So prove it

[arth1]

Good point. You just illustrated the problem with ballot security. There's no way to know whether dead people are voting, pr for whom. Therefore, we can all surely agree that ballot security is a good idea, right?

Not if it reduces legal votes more than it reduces fraudulent ones.
Be honest here - the intent is to reduce the number of votes for your opponent, whether it's by intimidation or picking nits. You'd get a far more correct election if, instead, you worked for increasing the number of correct cast votes. But that was never the intention.

Re:So prove it

[Patch86]

Inked fingers solve the "dead people voting" problem, and other related ballot-stuffing techniques. Those are what that idiotic GGGP (or however many layers it was) was getting at. It's also a good way of raising awareness about voting on voting day- a very visual sign of who has been bothered to vote and who has stayed at home.

While it doesn't solve the "illegal immigrants voting in my elections" problem, I'm not convinced that's even a real problem. Is there any decent evidence that illegal voters are anything like a big enough problem to actually influence results?

Re:So prove it

[Anonymous Coward]

While it doesn't solve the "illegal immigrants voting in my elections" problem, I'm not convinced that's even a real problem. Is there any decent evidence that illegal voters are anything like a big enough problem to actually influence results?

That's like saying "well I am unlikely to be robbed so there's not really a point in having police go after burglars."

That action is illegal and the law should be enforced. Or removed. One or the other. That is how a healthy system works.

Besides you really do not understand how things unfold. A problem like this always starts out small. That's the time to do something about it. Honest elections are important. If you don't treat them with the importance they deserve then Bad Things Happen and always have happened throughout history. This isn't something to toy around with and be careless about.

Re:No Avoidance No Principal

[Anonymous Coward]

Ingenious!! +5

Paper and manual: inefficient, hard to defraud

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is precisely the problem with many of the electronic systems. With the current scheme, clunky and manual, it is very difficult to do a mass fraud. Sure.. I can send a few dozen folks in to claim they're someone else, or suborn one member of the 3-4 board at most precincts, but to do a massive fraud requires compromising a lot of people, and the odds that NONE of them will blow the whistle is just too high.

Start going to a "swipe your id here" and "collect votes by modem", and now, you only need to suborn a couple people: the guy who builds the validity database, for instance.

Time for direct democracy

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"Actually the biggest reason we don't all vote on every last issue is that we can't all live in one city and meet in one place. The Internet fixes that problem."

Yes, I think it's time we move on to direct democracy. We've had the technology to do so for at least a decade. The effect of any fraud or vote manipulation can fixed by making the voting on critical issues more frequent. It should be possible to generate a trend that would make a sudden spike in say pro/anti gun/copyright/etc votes suspicious, unless it's tied to a major event.

Decisions should be reversible with a reasonable grace period for older decisions to be implemented before they are revoked. Let's say a majority decide to ban the sale of all firearms except for low-caliber handguns. The decision takes effect for four months before another vote is taken, which might reverse it. Safeguards should be in place that woudl require multiple consecutive votes or a cooling off period before critical decisions like the declaration of war or the revocation of a consitutional provision.

In our direct voting scenario, the president will be effectively a bureaucrat that merely implement decisions, thereby preventing government paralysis via "micro" management. Naturally such a president can also be impeached and removed from office for failing to do his job.

Re:Time for direct democracy

[Bronster]

Wow - yeah, a 4 month cooling off period before declaring war. Which everyone else in the world know about. What could possibly go wrong?

legislating is boring

[circletimessquare]

you can barely keep actual legislators focused on the task

and there is something like only 2-3% of the population who is interested in the issues and voting on them. 10% of that 2-3% is actually educated on the issues too. think about it

there are a lot of problem with representative democracy. but when compared to direct democracy, it's actually better. the people are fine with the idea of picking someone to represent their interests. of course, those representatives can be corrupted and frequently are. so work on that problem, rather than introduce a whole new set of worse problems with direct democracy

the vast majority don't have the time, interest, inclination, or education to vote constructively. if you made voting compulsory, you would have joke votes

the best virtual democracy can do is make representative democracy more fluid and transparent. work on that

PGP of course!

[GPLHost-Thomas]

It's been years that inside Debian, we vote using our PGP keys, which are in the "web of trust" (eg: signed by our peers). People got to learn about signing each other keys, then voting isn't a problem at all.

By the way, I just realize that the login form in Slashdot tells me that my password should be from 6 to 20 chars long. 6 chars at least, ok, but why is there a limit on the length? Shouldn't Slashdot use password hashing, and then don't care about the length of my password?

OP is nonsense

[swell]

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance to collaborative and open source governance..."

Gradually indeed. Have you seen any indication of this move? Perhaps it refers to the Supreme Court allowing corporations to collaborate with our elected leaders for the benefit of you and me, or the open source journalism that squeaks in the background of our political consciousness.

Sorry- I think this post is probably written by the same anonymous person who made up the Wiki articles linked. Show me this 'movement'; give me independent citations.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming...

Re:No Avoidance No Principal

[Anonymous Coward]

SameFag, go back to your chan.

open source governance

[Hognoxious]

open source governance

Shoot me. Shoot me now.

If you don't have a gun or enough bitcoins to buy one, I'm sure you can make one with a 3D printer that was developed by NASA.

They want to raise voting age to 22 1/2

[tepples]

Actually, someone who is a part time resident who plans on going back to another place should be voting back at that other place and not where they relocated temporarily.

To avoid futile debate due to definition clash, first we have to define "part-time resident". If someone who lives somewhere nine months out of the year is a "part-time resident", that could be used to disenfranchise someone entirely. Let me explain further:

I was going to school in Terre Haute from the fourth quarter of 1999 through the second quarter of 2003. During that time, I would visit my parents in Fort Wayne every third quarter and twice a quarter in the other quarters. I was a "part-time resident" both in Terre Haute, living there less than 12 months of the year because I planned to return to Fort Wayne for summer break, and in Fort Wayne, living there also less than 12 months of the year because I planned to return to Terre Haute for the start of the next school year. If someone in such a situation is counted as a "part-time resident" in both places, you have just in effect raised the voting age to 22 1/2 for college students who live on campus. This would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone the Twenty-sixth. So in practice, which locality's policy affected me more, that of the place where I lived nine months including election day or that of the place where I lived three?

Re:They want to raise voting age to 22 1/2

[sumdumass]

Your situation is a little different because both places are within the same state. You probably should have filled out an absentee ballot from Fort Wayne or went there to vote but it wouldn't really matter to the effect that you are already a resident of the state.

Where you live is not always your residency. While on vacation for a month in Spain, you do not reside in Spain even though you are living there for a month. Now if you changed the registration to your car and address on your drivers license to a bonafide address in Terre Haute, then you could say your residence was there. If you didn't, you likely lived there and resided in Fort Wayne.

Where do college students vote?

[tepples]

and requiring them to fill in the ballot at the polling place

Which is a how many hundred mile round trip for college students who live on campus?

Fort Wayne buses do not operate on Sundays

[tepples]

Restrictive access IDs is all about blocking people from voting, just as is weekday polling

Weekday polling is better than Sunday polling for people who rely on public transit (like myself) and who live in cities whose bus system does not operate on Sundays (like that of my city).

Re:Fort Wayne buses do not operate on Sundays

[cellocgw]

I'm sorry -- it would be exactly how hard to run the public transit on a weekday schedule on Voting Day? At least here in Boston MA, they regularly run augmented transit schedules when there's some major event going on during a weekend.

Someone else's birth certificate and SSA card

[tepples]

For one thing, what proof is needed that you aren't using someone else's birth certificate and Social Security card? For another, what ID is needed to get a replacement certified copy of the birth certificate (which I have had to do) or a replacement Social Security card?

Re:Someone else's birth certificate and SSA card

[sumdumass]

Well, I just checked into it. You do not need any proofs that you are not using someone else information. It's a crime to provide false information to get the ID or drivers license. But you now have to prove your residency which is accomplished with the above and a utility bill, bank statement with your address, voter registration card, any government issues documents with an address (welfare, unemployment, workers compensation) or release to jurisdiction statement, insurance card, certified letter to an address, change of address card for the US Post Office, and a number of other things.

The movie industry chooses political candidates

[tepples]

You could use them to run a political party designed to more directly represent the people.

But how would such a political party get elected in the first place without support from the mainstream media?

MPAA owns the legislature

[tepples]

We have representatives to filter out the derp.

But the realities of campaign finance ensure that any meaningful enhancement of the rights of users of copyrighted works is considered "derp".

Seems to me that deciding where you tax dollars...

[3seas]

... are used is key to determining what government is to do in representing the people they are supposed to represent.

Re:Seems to me that deciding where you tax dollars

[3seas]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956949

Web of trust outside city limits

[tepples]

People got to learn about signing each other keys

And there's the problem. Relying on key signing parties organized by amateurs can easily create a strongly connected web of trust within a city but a weak national or international web, except for those few people who routinely fly to international developer conferences. I imagine that such frequent flyers might be overrepresented among maintainers of high-profile packages in Debian, who would act as bottlenecks in the web of trust.

Re:Web of trust outside city limits

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Well, it works pretty well mostly. Indeed, people traveling are helping a lot are helping to have a more strongly connected web of trust, and we encourage the ones that travel to have their keys signed by those who have the most signatures (which is what I'm trying to do when I go in Debconf, considering that there's very few DDs where I live, and that they don't travel often).

However, it works less good in countries where there's no DDs at all. I can remember a case of one poor guy that wanted his key signed in Cuba, but since there was no DDs in Cuba, and that that person couldn't travel (he had no budget, and anyway, couldn't go in USA because of restrictions). It was though, because we ask for at least one PGP signature (and strongly require 2 at least, preferably from well known and very active DDs). Such cases are very difficult to handle.

But voting in person is a lot harder. PGP keys are only a way to make it possible to trust the voters. It's a technical answer to a problem. I don't see how it makes it harder to use PGP (in fact, it's harder to do without it).

ummm

[buddyglass]

As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance to collaborative and open source governance...

Is this actually happening? Because I don't see it.

This is not a good idea...

[NicBenjamin]

Like many intellectuals on the internet this guy does not understand that the greatest threat to freedom is not the government. It's your neighbors.

What happens in this system if 40% decides to screw 60%? Then anybody in that 60% who verifies anyone else will get beaten to death, and juries won't be able to convict the perpetrators because 40% think it's justifiable homicide. Higher levels of the government may intervene, but appealing to a technocrat in DC to implement Martial Law is pretty much the opposite of open-source collaborative government.

Note this exact scenario has actually happened in the US. After the Civil War the old Confederacy was 40% black. South Carolina and Mississippi were majority black, and every Confederate state had Unionist whites and Carpetbagging immigrants from the North. As long as the technocrats in DC were willing to fund a massive occupation army the fact that most southerners were anti-racist (or at least anti-official-government-racism) prevailed. Then Reconstruction ended, the troops imposed by DC went away, and we got decades of racism.

Pretty much every example of a Democracy stopping being a Democracy includes a similar period where the actual government is too weak to stop some group of thugs from beating up their neighbors. The Nazis, for example.

Re:This is not a good idea...

[dywolf]

Racism only existed in the south in your history books I'm guessing?
And it apparently told you that "reconstruction" was about stopping racism?

All those "reconstruction" policies were not about helping anyone. They were about punishing the south. They were about getting someone elses stuff for free or nearly so, getting rich quick off their misfortune. Anything that hurt the south was deemed good policy. Having land illegally seized by federal troops and sold at auction unless you sold it to some bagger for less than a penny on the dollar. Livestock and crops being barred from sale, or also seriously undervalued (wherein many folks took their goods to Mexico who was willing to pay full price...further ticking off northern policy makers and triggering export bans and huge tariffs and such). The list goes on and on.

Reconstruction was a bad thing.
Carbetbaggers were a bad thing
Both were more destructive to the south and its resources than anything during the war. In fact these things did more to fuel and perpetuate racism as we know it than anything else, via that lovely piece of human nature, the blame game. Had the war just ended and southerners treated like fellow citizens rather than a conquered nation to be raped and pillaged, the country and history of the past century would have been vastly different.
Your history book should be burned.

Re:This is not a good idea...

[NicBenjamin]

I'm not saying the South was alone in being racist, or that Reconstruction was a perfect solution to the problem of reintegrating the South into the Union on a non-racist basis. I'm just saying that in US history evils of the type this is designed to thwart don't happen very often.

As for the merits of reconstruction, I submit that by your own argument the worst thing it did was under-price grain. OTOH the best thing it did was prevent innocent people from being ripped to shreds by mobs. Modern Americans have very little idea of the brutality of lynch mobs. Pardon me if I see that as a fair trade.

Open source governance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but what the hell is that?

"Governance" is a weasel word actually meaning, of course, "government", but lacking the temerity to visibly claim any authority, or wish, to direct men with guns, and certainly not implying any responsibility to be accountable to anyone. If you don't like its decisions, you must only realize that it's YOUR perverse refusal to go along with the "consensus" that's the problem. You are socially maladjusted. Perhaps we should put you on some meds, or send you on a nice holiday in the country. We'll take those icky guns, while we're at it. Don't want you to hurt yourself, now do we? You wouldn't want anyone to think you might be one of those horrible mass-murderers, either, right? Christ, you people are amateurs.

Ok, let's see here. The OP is an AC worried about spamming and sock-puppets. But not trolls. Gee, I wonder why.

Absentee limits

[tepples]

You probably should have filled out an absentee ballot from Fort Wayne

I was under the impression that the politicians crying voter fraud wanted to put new limits on absentee ballots.

Re:Absentee limits

[sumdumass]

The only limits I've seen on absentee ballots wanting to be imposed is where the states or counties within those states mail them out to everyone and they want to turn it into a request by mail or show in person thing.

  Of course that does show a problem if someone wanted to commit voting fraud with absentee ballots. There would be less available and a tighter record of who asked for them, there would also be a legal situation with mail fraud and the such should someone pretend to be someone else through the US post office in order to get access to absentee forms.

I think the fears are right now that every registered voters get the forms in the mail. Some people do not vote or publicly declare they aren't voting to their friends and neighbors leaving the possibility of someone else voting for them with an absentee ballot.

Mob Rule? Not in my lifetime!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's hoping that the move to mob rule continues to be slow. Just look at the way people here have spoken to each other, and that's just on /.

The reason for leaders is that the average person continues to be an educated idiot. Sorry, and I know that the opinion is unpopular - but do you think the US Congress got the way it is because the SMART people vote for these guys?

"Validating". Isn't that the new Euphemism for "

[Anonymous Coward]

When the computer has run its course and died its natural death, which will be genocidally murdered, wiped out root and branch, laptop and tabletop, netbook, nookbook, 'droid, 'pad and 'phone, by libertarians sick up to there with every goddamn thing electronic spying and eves-cropping and geo-locating and profiling and tracking and monitoring, then will the computer be cast in its rightful place as the natural electronic instrument extension of the medieval confession-inquisition. A bureaucracy of electron monitors and spies that replaced the medieval Church bureaucracy of priests and spies, assigned to track every "parishoner" and report all to the Tetra-tera-byte-arch in- - - Where? Neo-Babylon? The Negev Desert? China? Where is the Electronic Vatican being located even now???

No, it is not mob rule if we use newfangled tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Mob rule is a problem of old-style direct democracy. Read the links from the op, and you will see that new conceptions of direct democracy completely overcome those old issues: http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_governance

You have to break out of the mindset that democracy inherently requires majority rule (think consensus instead) and that it have occasional votes on big issues (think instead of continuous voting on everything, with different people participating all the time).