Slashdot Mirror


University Developing Technology To Vote On Your Tablet, Smartphone

smitty_one_each writes in with this story about a professor developing a new electronic voting system. "A Clemson University professor is developing a new electronic voting system that will allow voters to cast their ballots from home computers, tablets and smartphones. As Clemson's chair of human-centered computing, Juan Gilbert has lead teams of students over the last 10 years to create an online voting system accessible at home or on the go that will be more accurate, have increased verification and make voting more accessible to people with disabilities by offering mobile and voice-command options."

16 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. So now... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    hackers will not only steal my identity, they will steal my vote.

    1. Re:So now... by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm from Chicago. Democrats have been doing it for decades.

    2. Re:So now... by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't worry, as it stands politicians have been doing it for years anyway.

      Indeed. And thieves have been stealing for even longer time. But only fairly recently has it become possible to steal vast sums of money without physically going to were it is stored — without even traveling into the country, where the storage is located.

      Once we create some sort of e-vote, the politicians — the incumbents, especially — will be in a position to rig not just a few precincts here and there, but an entire polity (city, state, nation). "If it's not close, they can't cheat," — was the saying about elections. With an electronic vote, much as I'd like the convenience, cheating will become easier and will no longer need a close vote...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:So now... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only way to do so is buy the human.

      You can also bully or otherwise coerce the same human, which is what the anonymity was meant to prevent.

      The "fix" is simpler, easier, and cheaper than today's voting system, and would fix most of what's wrong with it.

      So, your proposal is to abolish the voting anonymity... Interesting, but I'm not sure, I like that.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:So now... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trust is actually the big issue with electronic voting, no matter the form it takes. Not that it was untrustworthy (it is, but that's not even the point). The point is that you HAVE to trust it unless you're one of the few that can actually audit it (even if you were allowed to).

      With pen&paper voting, all it takes to verify and audit an election is the ability to see where that voter made his X and to count the paper slips. That's an ability one can sensibly expect from any human being of average intelligence. Hell, even the average US voter should be able to accomplish that. Same for being part of the supervision collective to ensure that everything is in order. You can see that ballot and how it is glued shut, you can see how people deposit one slip of paper in it, that's plenty to ensure that everything is going according to plan and order.

      No such luck with any kind of electronic voting. Not with the currently in place e-voting booths, and most certainly not with online voting where you have exactly ZERO chance to audit anything. What's left is that you can trust the powers that are that everything is in order. You, Mr. Joe Average, cannot verify it. You cannot verify that the machine works as planned (even if you were allowed to examine its code, you could not understand it), so at the very least you'd have to trust those computer nerds.

      The big threat is here that it is no longer trivial to debunk voting fraud conspiracies. Today you can just dump the slips on whoever dares to call you a fraudster and have him count. What do you plan to do when someone calls your voting machines and online voting procedure into doubt? Then all that keeps your system afloat is that people trust you. If they don't, wave good bye to your system's stability because a system where people do not believe in its legitimation is waiting for a revolution.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:So now... by plover · · Score: 3, Informative

      The biggest threat is with the potential for voter coercion. A voting booth is private: you are isolated from everyone else, and therefore you can't prove you voted one way or another to someone else. But if he's standing behind you while you vote, you can sell your vote, or even be coerced into voting against your will.

      --
      John
  2. When I tried something similar by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back when Digg was big and Reddit was new, I wanted to make a factional voting site. Basically it works like this: Everyone votes and downvotes stuff like Reddit. But everyone also has sub categories for their affiliation. An example might be: Democrat/Republican. They'd have a long check list and radio buttons of different affiliations. This way something opposing groups disagree on would be voted up for their own personal faction.

    We were going to have petitions where you could negative sign the petition to disagree. So politicians don't see a list of 10,000 signatures when 100,000 people hate it.

    The problem we had was determining who is a registered voter. It is hard to verify people as having a real identifier especially if you have no start up capital to send out stamps for snail mail verification methods. And another problem is once you have registered voters, how do you watch out for hackers? We decided we couldn't solve these problems and gave up.

    Someone really could make a hyper democracy site though. there's a market for it. Educate the voters on their desires for politics, and tell them which of their elected officials voted for or against certain topics they're interested in! It is real simple in concept. It'd start out as a voter education site, but if it seriously got powerful, politics could be different with an educated voter base.

    1. Re:When I tried something similar by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      politics could be different with an educated voter base.

      We have an educated voter base.
      The problem is that their education is crap.

      What you want is an informed voter base.
      Preferably one that is informed with factual information and not "because Ayn Rand said so."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:When I tried something similar by swillden · · Score: 4, Funny

      Darned right. People should vote based on real facts. From Oprah.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  3. Nope by dugancent · · Score: 5, Informative

    As long as there is the ability for someone to stand behind you and make sure vote a certain way, I won't support it. No one knows how I vote when I step into a voting booth.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    1. Re:Nope by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason there is no remote voting

      Well, actually, there is, throughout the US: absentee ballots. And absentee ballots are significantly more prone to fraud than in-person votes, including quite a few criminal prosecutions for fraud schemes across the country. Oh, and there have been cases of election officials conveniently locating a bunch of absentee ballots after election day that had been "lost".

      Back when I was living in New Hampshire during a hotly contested presidential primary, a "completely independent" group of volunteers showed up at my grandmother's nursing home to help the residents cast their votes, helpfully filling out the ballots so that all the voters needed to do was sign their name at the bottom. Clearly nothing funny going on there.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. Re:Won't happen by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think you have it backwards. According to the Maxwell Poll, 60-80% of welfare recipients voted Democrat. Generally speaking, welfare recipients receive welfare because they have low income. People with low income can't afford as much gadgetry. Thus it will make it even more convenient for a higher percentage of Republicans to vote compared to Democrats because more of them can afford the hardware. You can expect Democrats to resist this far more than Republicans.

    (I know, I took your post insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with your political viewpoint literally, but you are wrong regardless of your motive)

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  5. Re:Won't happen by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nah, it isn't that at all. Many people who would vote for republicans frequent the interweb and even this site. Generally, the smarter a person gets, the more republican they tend to lean in ideology even if they insist on remaining democrats or liberals. And before anyone marks that down, I said lean as in their positions tend towards but doesn't necessarily hit. Many people will find their natural position on any given topic will lean in a direction they don't consider to be the democratic or republican and will correct their initial assessment once they find out what others in their favored side state.

    What they fear is- and why they won't allow it is that the people who don't vote will end up casting a vote anyways and it will always be for the democrats running. That is why they want ID of some sort to be presented when you cast your vote- to prove you are who you say you are and not the guy who got you to register knowing you would be too stoned to get off the couch and go vote on election day.

  6. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Generally, the smarter a person gets, the more republican they tend to lean in ideology even if they insist on remaining democrats or liberals.

    Except that studies consistently result in findings contrary to that assertion. Higher intelligence is associated with politically liberal views almost across the board, with a secondary emphasis on movement toward the political center. Conservative ideology does not become more prevalent with increases in either intelligence or educations.

    Decent survey of literature here:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationship

    Also:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand

    Your bias also shows in your anecdote about voter ID laws--empirically, Republicans are responsible for most election-related shenanigans. But then again, someone getting preemptively defensive about accusing people of an impliedly illogical "insistence" on "remaining" liberal might simply prefer to ignore the evidence and make unsupported claims.

  7. Re:Won't happen by CastIronStove · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your argument: "Being poor does not stop people from buying smart phones". The evidence for your conclusion: seeing many panhandlers and other assorted "street people" using smart phones. While your anonymous anecdotal evidence is compelling, the counter argument "poor people are less likely to own a smart phone" is backed by actual "research". For instance, a Pew study published in 2011 that considered the adoption rates of smartphones among different demographics concluded that

    Smartphone ownership is highly correlated with household income.

    (link), drawing this conclusion from the 22% ownership rate among households with an annual income of less than $30,000.

  8. Would not be democratic... by Casandro · · Score: 5, Informative

    it would not be democratic, at least not by German standards, since the layperson cannot check it. Even if it's secure, which it cannot be, you need at least a degree in mathematics and several days of work to understand and check it yourself. Since a voting system must be resistant to large scale attacks, i.e. the government conspiring against the voters, it is vital that everybody can check it for themselves.

    With pen and paper everything is easy to check. You look into the ballot before it is sealed, you check if everyone just throws in one ballot, and on the end you can count the ballots easily. This is something which can be checked trivially.