Slashdot Mirror
How Bitcoin Could Be Key To Online Voting
blottsie (3618811) writes If implemented correctly, the proliferation of online voting could solve one of the biggest problems in American democracy: low voter turnout. The 2014 midterms, for example, boasted the lowest voter turnout in 72 years. Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primaries. Making online voting work is infinitely harder than it initially seems. However, in the past few years, there's been a renewed effort to solve the conundrum of online voting using a most unexpected tool: Bitcoin. The key idea is this: The main job in online voting is ensuring that the election system records someone’s vote the way they intended. Running votes over the blockchain, which is public, creates an auditable trail linking a person and their vote. Bitcoin-enabled voters don’t have to place their trust in Florida ballot counters trying to discern the difference a hanging chad and a dimpled chad—nor in black box online voting systems from private companies where what’s happening inside is a mystery. The proof is right there on the blockchain.
You can't have an auditable trail and a secret ballot.
Isn't one of the key features of modern voting the ability not to have your vote connected to you? This is part of the reason why there's so much argument over "card check" voting systems for unionization, because it allows the union or the company to coerce workers into voting one way or the other, since their vote is not anonymous.
One can already vote with a minimum inconvenience by being a permanent absentee. I can't remember the last time I actually went anywhere to vote, and haven't missed a single election in decades. Those who are not voting will, for the most part, carry on not voting with or without bitcoin.
It's not a given that low voter turnout is a problem. We don't need more low-information voters (89% agree that DHMO should be banned) and we don't need to coerce those who do not vote to signal their non-consent to the system.
Blockchain technology could make voting more reliable, but that's a separate issue - don't confuse the two.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's not worth going out of our way to make voting MORE accessible than it already is. There are multiple polling places in every city of any size across the nation. People who are so uninterested in the process that they can't either go to their local poll or drop an absentee ballot in the mail are VERY likely to have a misinformed, useless opinion.
There are any number of areas regarding voting that I'd rather see time spent on instead of being able to claim "There's an app for that".
Power to pawns!
At least that's what I hear every time someone proposes any kind of voter authentication.
Vote early, vote often,
I'm sorry, but what idiot has decided that having your vote be a matter of public record is a good idea?
From all of the news stories I've heard over the last year or so, I don't trust Bitcoin at all.
So WTF would I want this tied to voting for?
This sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. Bitcoin seems like it's barely usable as a currency, it has no place trying to prop up democracy.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just put the damn ballot on paper. Computers will never be trustworthy. It is impossible.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why would we want the votes of someone who can't be bothered to go to a polling station as it is?
There is no way that you can conduct online voting and ensure that the voter is not being intimidated. Offsite voting is a necessary evil for certain people (the handicapped and those who are unavoidably out of town on election day) but it does not need to be expanded to cover everyone. Here in New York we very specifically keep those most likely to intimidate you out of the voting booth, i.e., your employer and union official. The people that can hold a financial gun to your head if you don't vote the way they want. With online voting (or offsite voting on paper, i.e., absentee ballots) there is no way to actually ensure that the voter doesn't have a gun (real or proverbial) aimed at their head when they click 'submit.' For this reason alone I will always oppose it and other measures (vote by mail) that take people out of the polling place.
The summary also makes the assumption that low voter turnout is a big problem. This is an oft-repeated claim but there's zero evidence to suggest that increased participation rates equate to better results. People choose not to vote for many reasons; apathy likely being the biggest one, followed closely by a generalized disgust with the available options. "None of the above" is a perfectly valid option in an election, whether exercised via the write-in for "Mickey Mouse" or by staying home on Election Day.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"creates an auditable trail linking a person and their vote"
Being able to verify how someone voted defeats the whole point. You need ANONYMOUS, but verifiable voting, if that's at all possible. Otherwise, you get into the whole issue of vote buying, intimidation, public shaming, etc.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Would this amount to a poll tax?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Voting must be private. The blockchain and the transactions it contains are always public.
And we will never use it to force people to vote in our favor by threats of violence.
Secret ballots make sure politicians keep using a carrot to get votes instead of a stick. Might even be a fake carrot (usually is), but that's better than a real stick.
The causes of low voter turnout are many, and difficulty with the voting process itself is not one of them, except for one factor: waiting time in the big, popular elections. Waiting time is not a factor in most elections. I am an officer of election, and have worked the polls for nearly a decade.
Despite all the hullabaloo, it is not, in fact, difficult to register to vote. It is not, in fact, difficult to show up at a polling station, check in, and cast your vote. There are scores of organizations that exist merely to help people with the process.
So, the whole rationale behind this BitCoin idea falls on its face.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
You cannot move the polling station to your pocket. The point of a polling station is that you're not affected to any kind outside influence.
There are options outside of "lazy", "forgot", "don't care" when it comes to reasons not to vote. Myself, I make a point of not voting because I'm an Anarchist and voting just proves you believe someone can be your leader.
The author doesn't understand the requirements for elections. It should not be possible to bribe or coerce anyone for their vote. Anonymity is therefore an absolute requirement.
If votes were tied to identities you could have politicians bribing individuals for votes. Coercion could come in various forms, not just threat of violence, and it doesn't have to happen immediately. "I'm sorry you and your children are starving, Ms. Hudson. This is completely unrelated, but I see you voted against us during the last election. Ah, according to the computer, we're completely out of funds to help, sorry."
That is a horrible idea. There is a reason we have a secret ballot, and no receipts, to make sure now one is forced to vote a particular way. Was no thought given to this idea at all?
An overly-complex and ill-considered solution to a mostly non-problem. I was honestly surprised that the summary *didn't* end with "Read on to see what Bennett Hasselton has to say."
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
ahh most of the posts in regards to this subject are totally wrong. A good online voting system would get many more informed votes. Including me. It would be awesome if I could go to a site click the candidates picture and see her view points, voting record etc and cast my vote. It simply takes too much time to do the research, write it all down, then go vote. By the way people you have no idea what happens to the vote when you go to a public station. You trust it because...why? Its the SAME thing. It's like my mom being afraid to put her CC information in Amazon because its "online". The store is "online" too. All you have to do is make a system that ensures anonymity.
Yes...yes you are.
" Bitcoin-enabled voters don’t have to place their trust in Florida ballot counters trying to discern the difference a hanging chad and a dimpled chad—nor in black box online voting systems from private companies where what’s happening inside is a mystery. The proof is right there on the blockchain."
So we should put our trust in a bitcoin type system? How about no. Does that work for you?
Fuck it, vote by twitter. #NewPresident.
You have it wrong, People I know don't vote because its hard to vote, They don't vote because we have simply lost faith in democracy.
When you have parties/persons who claim to stand for one thing and then do the exact opposite when elected.
When election campaigns that should be the most important thing to our society are nothing more the beauty pageants.
I haven't voted in 9 years simply because I don't care, it makes no difference if Party A or Party B gets to be "leader" all the sides have already be bought and paid for by the same people.
This sort of thing happens in the USA because many of us don't want the government to "get things done". We're mostly happy with the status quo (or not too unhappy, anyways), and figure, based on past experience, that most of what the government does when it gets the urge to "do something about xxx" will:
a) not produce the intended result
b) cost us more money
c) generally not get anything (good or bad) done till long after the problem its meant to solve has gone away on its own.
Do remember that we vote for a PERSON, not a PARTY, as most of you in Europe and elsewhere do. The question isn't "do we want more Democrats/Republicans?" but "do we want this particular bozo?"
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In addition to selling your credit card and social security numbers, they can now offer to sell your vote for 10 cents apiece. Just harvest the private keys and it's a race to see which botnet can sign with the stolen key first! Sell them on TOR or I2P, I'm pretty sure Koch and Soros will bid big money to literally buy the election -- you can auction them against each other.
And if you say "we'll put the private key on a dedicated USB stick only for voting" then not only have you killed a lot of the convenience (for instance, you cannot do it from a phone but need a PC that can act as a USB host) but you've just moved the point of pwnage up a little bit to having to steal it right as you vote (or present a bogus voting interface!).
Really what you need is a set of physically separate machines that people can go to and plug their USB drive into a known secure environment. You could even put them in convenient nearby locations like schools and churches ...
It should be very clear by now that at least one party doesn't want more people to vote in general, only more of the people likely to vote in that party's favor. The establishment only accepted electronic voting so that they can game the outcome. They'll never take the next step to allow it to be widely exercized.
Frankly, if someone can't be arsed to vote in person, via mail in ballot, or via early voting, I'm not sure they really care enough about the process to put any real thought into their vote at all.
This is the stupidest idea I've ever read, I'm shocked it wasn't a Bennet Haselton blog post.
One of the big things I see with respect to U.S. elections is that there are far too many thing crammed onto the ballot every two years. Simplify it! Every 4 years you get your presidential vote, along with senate and house, and the off 2 years you get senate and house. Put anything else on other days. Federal elections could have a standardized ballot across the entire country, no dimpled cards or hanging chads.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
let's review the evidence. biggest Bitecon shop rifled and shut down broke a year ago. last week, the next biggest Bitecon shop was hit for something around $5 million in Bitecon. TV hosts wave around a new wallet on the air and it's emptied before the videotape rolls on the story.
and somebody wants to run VOTES over this leaky scam system? almost as bad at the Supreme Court allowing billionnaires to buy all the elections they want.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Given that higher voter turnout generally favors Democratic candidates, I'm guessing the Republicans will come out against anything like this and will find a way to kill it before it ever happens. There'll be some other reason given, but the real reason is that it would benefit the opposition.
I love how this meme of "low voter turnout" gets distributed because people want to believe it. The reality is all in the distribution. This was a mid-term which meant that distribution was key. Where a seat was hotly contested and in doubt, the actually turnout average was higher than normal. In those seats that weren't contested it was lower. But since people want to believe that lower voter turnout was the reason their party lost.... It's nice to hold on to such beliefs in the face of such an overwhelming defeat.
Personally I think non of the above should be on all ballots. He would win landslides every time. If he gets a majority the election needs to be Reheld and new candidates need to be chosen.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Very well put. I think there should be an actual "None of the above" choice on the ballot. If the count of that choice reaches a certain high percentage, say 50%, the elections should be considered null and void and new elections with new candidates should be run. This way we may have a chance at actually getting the rascals out of the government. Oh, and on topic, elections MUST be conducted in public place with privacy booths. Online voting as tempting as it may sound in this day and age of not getting off the couch for ANYTHING is a bad idea because of possible coercion and voter manipulation. Public polling place, with private voting booths and paper ballots. Count the ballots publicly. Also, voting should last 3-5 days covering a weekend and off hours to accommodate people working night shifts, etc. There are many improvements we can make to the current voting system, but taking it online is not a good one. Why do people think that anything technological is automatically superior to low-tech alternatives? Paper ballot is still the most reliable way to record votes.
the purpose of elections is to convince the public the election was fair. crytpography isn't transparent. worse in some forms of crytography it gains security from centralization of the key control making single point of attack more likely. It's much better when the public can see how the election works.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Why do we need all of this secrecy anyway? Because someone might retaliate if you don't vote for them?
There are many more problems with corruption and secret voting systems.
If you truly support someone, then why not just say it out loud?
Voting should be done out of love, not fear.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Which is easy to do when the small town is dominated by the local chieftain.
Which is certainly doable by a well-coordinated syndicate of local chieftains with a shared interest in a pro-local-chieftain candidate.
This is why vote anonymity is essential. If a ruler is powerful enough to impose the votes on a whole community, no one would be silly enough to risk their neck by openly testifying against them. This may look hypothetical today, but if you open the possibility for coercion in elections, its only a matter of time that it gets abused on a wide scale.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Other democratic nations have similar election procedures, but much higher turnout. The problem is therefore not with the process, but with the American electorate, which is uniquely ill-informed and disengaged. Try to find a way to fix that.
As your employer, I'd like to see your randomly drawn ID, you know, to verify that you really voted during the two hours you were off.
Here's the public part of a randomly drawn ID, plus a certificate signed by the election office. With the public part, you can verify that I voted but not for whom. For all you can tell, I voted for Mickey Mouse.
For this to have any effect someone would need to force 100s (small-town election) to millions (presidential election) ppl to vote the way they need.
With just a few percent of the victims testifying anyone trying to pull this off should find themselves in serious trouble..
So any of the top unions in the united states would have enough members to make this worthwhile? Say, the teachers union, at 2.5 million people. "We're giving all union members 2 hours to complete your voting using the designated computers we've set up in the cafeteria. Union officials will be present to answer any questions you might have, and including the union's position on the proposed legislation on today's ballot." It would be easy for the union to say they were facilitating higher voter turnout by supplying locations and resources for staff to complete online voting, but it would also be easy to glare menacingly and hover behind any staff you think are going to vote against the union's position. And if a rogue administrator set up logging on the network to track everyone's votes? Even if he were caught (note: if!), the union would disavow any knowledge of or responsibility for his actions.
The premise of this article is flawed. The biggest problem with the current electorate is low voter turn out? No, the problem is uneducated voters voting. If anything we have too many idiots casting ballots on issues they've learned about through entertainment tonight or TMZ.
The secret ballot has two purposes. one is it maintains your privacy and that's good for you. The other is it prevents selling your vote and that's good for the public. If I have a bitcoin ballot then I can easily transfer that coin to someone else to vote. thus I can sell my vote and the buyer knows for sure how it will be cast.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
If you can't be bothered to go to your local polling place and vote then your opinion ain't worth shit anyhow, so spare us the net result of adding tens of millions of even-lower-information-voters to an election. We had one of those in 2008 and 2012, look what it got us.
That is the ultimate recipe for stagnation, no wonder China is surpassing you in leaps and bounds.
The people that can hold a financial gun to your head if you don't vote the way they want.
Worse than the gun to the head, the free voting app from your party / union / special interest group / chamber of commerce that makes casting your vote simple! Just type in your ID, press the big red "Vote!" button, and we fill out the virtual ballot for you! No getting bogged down in details like names or offices or having to read those boring ballot initiatives!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Low voter turnout is NOT in and of itself a problem. Only people who care enough to inform themselves and are concerned should vote.
Low voter turnout means people who don't give a hoot and have no idea have not participated. This is a good thing. The real problem is: How to turn them into people who give a hoot and have informed ideas of the issues.
Furthermore, whether they've informed themselves they way the way you do or are concerned about what you're concerned about is a feature of democracy, not a problem.
89% agree that DHMO should be banned
If you breathe it you'll DIE!
Everyone will die. In fact, if there's not enough DHMO in the air you breathe, you'll die sooner. It's not about avoiding DHMO but about having the amount that the human body expects.
Electronic voting machines in use in my county still have "fill in all Democrats", "fill in all Republicans", and "fill in all Libertarians" buttons on the first screen.
how is this in the same sentence as Bitcoin?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Will the value of my vote be as stable as the value of Bitcoin?
Republicans are fighting hard to decrease voter turnout. Low voter turn out is exactly what they want. They will never vote for something that increases voter turnout.
Its trivial.
Play news channel of your choice as a hint to your servants. They you talk about how worried your are that if the vote doesn't go your way, you may have to start downsizing while reminding them about how tough things are and how lucky they are to have a job.
And yes, I see it happening it business.
"one of the biggest problems in American democracy: low voter turnout." which is translated in the post to it is too hard to vote so people don't vote. However, this is a misconception. People don't vote because it has no purpose for them. They do not think that they are participating in a process which has any effect on politics. Therefore, the key problem is to ensure that every vote counts in a sense that it has effect on public policies.
Furthermore, the key problem is not only to guarantee that every vote is counted as intended, but also to be able to verify this vote and vote counting by everyone. Every time where a computer is the only thing that counts, the count can be corrupted. To do the same with paper and crosses on papers is much harder and easier to figure out.
Duress does not have to come in an overt form like a physical assault. If I were your employer and you voted against an issue that I was passionate about there are a myriad ways I could punish you that could never be tied back to your vote. I could increase your workload, I could limit your raises or promotion possibilities, I could give you terrible hours, I could even find an unrelated reason to terminate your employment.
Or maybe I'm your neighbor and I disagree with your vote on a ballot question or a candidate you voted for. If I'm motivated enough I may take my argument out of the polling place and start to make your life hell at home through little things.
With a secret ballot you can vote any way you want without me knowing how you voted unless you tell me. That protects you from both direct and indirect duress. I'm assuming you grew up in a country where the secret ballot is a reality and you've benefited from that without even understanding it.
Wrong. If this was a problem vote by mail would have intimidation problems. Oregon, Washington, and Colorado already vote by mail. These states are also ranked as some of the states with the least corruption.
http://mic.com/articles/90963/the-10-most-and-10-least-corrupt-states-in-america
And the opposition majority congress thing swings in every modern-era mid-term election except one.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I've seen his surname misspelled in comments as both "Hazelton" and "Hasselton". How is it supposed to be pronounced anyway?
The proposal of voting with Bitcoins has a flaw of trying to solve a problem that has not been posited. People who do not vote often choose not to. Most people vote for peer pressure, or by a sense of civic duty, which washes away if one doesn't need to get out of one's basement and meet the neighborhood, family and friends, to cast a vote. Voting online has already been tried in Switzerland and it did cause the turnout to decrease(http://www.nytimes.com/...).
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Actually, not voting is essentially saying "Just take whatever everyone else says and strengthen it." If you wanted to say you can't have someone be your leader, you should go vote and do a write in for yourself for every candidate. One is an implicit denial and another is a explicit denial.
The key to increasing voter turnout is not about making it easier to vote.
The key to increasing voter turnout is allowing someone to run that's worth voting for.
"None of the above" is a perfectly valid option in an election, whether exercised via the write-in for "Mickey Mouse"
Isn't voting for Mickey Mouse what got into this Copyright Term Extension Act mess in the first place?
or by staying home on Election Day.
Some countries make "staying home on Election Day" a crime for eligible voters.
Blockchain-based voting doesn't require users to be remote. Physical voting booths could run the software.
What exactly does Bitcoin do to help in reliable voting? If all you're interested in is a searchable public voting track record (and, others here have already given lots of reasons why you should NOT do that...) - then an old-fashioned relational database will do that job just fine - in fact, they are GREAT for this kind of stuff. If you are worried about the integrity of such database - how about the integrity of your blockchain? It depends on no one having a majority of the processing power, doesn't it? Processing power can be bought - and given the importance of the elections, it will.
American politics has morphed into one continuous election cycle with so much money being thrown around it is ridiculous. As soon as a president gets into power, it's like every policy decision has to be vetted incase it damages the chances of the next election. Whereas someone working for the people wouldn't care and just try to keep things progressing. I love to see little glimmers of rebellion like re-establishing ties with Cuba after so long, gives me some hope. On the flip side, Gitmo is still going, albeit at a reduced rate.. again, the opposite party blocking just so they can say - LOOK! He didn't keep his promise!! (ignore the fact that we blocked it)
It's extremely unlikely that most people who don't vote do so because there are only two choices.
Most people probably don't vote because:
a: They think it won't do anything - no matter how many are running.
b: They don't believe they really have the time to bother.
c: They are pretty happy with how things are and don't see that much will change.
d: all of the above and more.
I know some people don't vote because there are only two choices but I suspect most people don't vote because its simply easier not to.
And now you don't have an audible trail: I can't be sure my ballot was counted correctly. The first comment above still holds.
Only drug addicts, the primary users of Bitcoin, could come up with such a fundamentally flawed idea.
Given that recent studies have proven marijuana use decreases IQ, perhaps drug users should re-think how much of their remaining grey matter they're really using when they formulate ideas such as these.
You know what works? Paper ballots. Technology can't solve every problem, and pothead fantasies certainly can't solve anything.
obviously there would be no searchable database where anyone could look up anyone else's vote..
forcing someone to reveal his vote or forcing him to vote in a specific way would be a criminal offense
It's certainly possible to come up with scenarios on how such a system could be gamed and I too agree the concerns are valid and need to be adressed.
I'm just argueing that keeping the anonymity requirement more important than anything else is probably contra-productive.
Ex.: with an online voting system it would be possible to implement "permanent voting"
any representative could be recalled mid-term if 50%+ voters signal removal of their support for him.
So, the presumption that more voters is something the "powers that be" wants is wrong.
Not so much in practice ... I live in Oregon, where ballots are mailed out, to be returned by hand or by mail. The results have been good: higher voter participation and a low rate of problematic (fraud, coercion) behavior. One data point, (or several million, depending on how you look at it) ...
By allowing people to vote without having to be "right here, right now", turns out a lot of people vote, and in my case more thoughtfully, dedicating a evening or two to mulling and researching issues and candidates as I mark the ballot. And it worked; pot is now totally legal here :-)
Make owning some property be a requirement to vote, the KKK would be proud
Reminds me of the episode collecting signatures for a petition to stop women's suffrage. Needless to say, the petition drive was very successful.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
The republicans would never allow a change that would bring so many young people to the polls.
Why do we need all of this secrecy anyway? Because someone might retaliate if you don't vote for them?
That is exactly why we have secret ballots. Intimidation used to be a routine occurrence in the US voting process prior to the secret ballot being introduced.
There are many more problems with corruption and secret voting systems.
I assure you that open ballots have worse problems in most cases when it comes to elections.
If you truly support someone, then why not just say it out loud?
Because some people will beat you or even try to kill you if you do not support their candidate. It's trivial to find examples. No one should have to fear for their safety due to a ballot.
I'm American, so my opinion on this matter does count. We live in what is generally considered to be a free society. There is no legal requirement to vote. That's part of what being in a free society means. If you choose not to vote for any reason, good or bad, you have the right to do so. Frankly, a lot of governments that have no freedom at all require mandatory voting. Yes, I know that Australia does too. That is their problem, not ours. I vote regularly but I feel very strongly that anybody who doesn't want to vote should have that right too. That just makes my vote more valuable.
if the rules is so powerful than noone except his minions are even allower to run for office...
I'm just argueing that the possible improvement of not fully anonymous boting system need to be weighted instead of just fetishizing the anonymousness requirement.
This is a complicated topic, but one I wrote about six months ago here, http://www.digitalsuffrage.com...
There are many countries that are trying to adopt digital voting technologies, and there are ways to preserve both anonymity and integrity for digital votes. Since the vote is individually auditable, it would be possible to physically retract misappropriated votes for example, which could guard against identity theft or other computer breach.
I've said it before with respect to Bitcoin. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. A universal ledger of fact-in-time information is a powerful tool for building applications such as electronic voting systems.
many of us don't want the government to "get things done"
Most people are libertarians, and see government intruding every chance they get. The fact that they continue to vote for the two parties marching us down the same path to tyranny is beyond me. The problem is, most of these same people also say "there ought to be a law" without considering how these will impact everyone's liberties. Politicians love to stir up the passions of the people with "assault rifle" or "Terrorist" language and impose new restrictions on liberty in the name of security.
And we all know how that works out in the end.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
AFAIK, none of those issues had anything to do with Bitcoins itself but a number of exchange sites which went belly up. BT might be a lousy currency (or not) but the protocol and its implementation is surprisingly well though out.
How about everyone doesn't vote next election. What would happen if absolutely no one voted? Suddenly all the elected positions would be gone when the turn ends? Does any government have provisions for that? I know some places it's illegal not to vote.
We vote by mail here in Oregon. I like it. It give you a chance to sit down and research each issue (voter guide, google, etc). Compared to having to go to a polling place ONLY on a Tuesday I really prefer it. I just wish it was postage paid, or was mailable with just 1 Forever stamp.
I know I will annoy some naysayers here, but I really would like to see the polls open from Saturday through Tuesday for non vote by mail states. I hated having to track down a polling place when I used to live in California. It had to be in the evening after work, and usually had a long line thanks to everyone else having similar schedules. Kind of a hassle.
You wish. Overcrowding, terrible pollution, increasingly taxed middle class, autocratic leaders.
People like you claiming "China is teh bestest!" are as dumb as the people in the 90s claiming Japan was the next world superpower.
... and everything looks like a nail.
1. Perhaps Bitcoin has it's uses, but at the moment that seems somewhat dubious.
2. I'm sure online voting will eventually be solved via cryptography.
3. If the solution to online voting involves Bitcoin I'll eat my hat.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Basically, we have a tradeoff in advantages and disadvantages between the choice of leaving a vote accountable or secret. If the vote is accountable, then there's a means to force the voter to vote a certain way. If the voter is not accountable, then one can assault the vote counting mechanism itself.
In the US, I gather we started with mostly public voting. That turned out to cause considerable problems due to widespread extortion, bribing voters, etc. That's the main impetus behind the argument to keep voting secret. OTOH, you don't have to worry as much about accountability for the same reason.
Over time, the present physical-based vote counting systems have evolved to keep votes secret. The problem with them is that they're klunky and slow with plenty of opportunity for miscounts and other honest mistakes. But not so much reason to care about accountability due to the considerable overhead of gaming these system without getting caught.
What has changed in recent decades is a move to electronic voting systems. While these have considerable advantages, they also have the huge disadvantage that they're easy to game by someone with sufficient access to just simply edit votes and vote tallies.
My view is that has already been done in the 2012 Republican primaries (in a considerable number of states, including all the early primaries, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina) to select Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president and a different sort of electronic vote manipulation might have helped elect Bush in Ohio in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
This sort of suspected vote manipulation is what I think drives the current push towards accountability. Did your vote really count or did someone just replace your vote?
My take on it is that being able to audit your vote does weaken vote secrecy, but it requires a lot more work to manipulate the vote this way than in the good old days of public voting. But what does concern me is that this might not actually do all that much to eliminate vote manipulation. If the computer says 80 people voted for candidate A and 100 for candiate B, then you'll need to come up with 81 people voting for candidate A or 101 people voting for candidate B to show that the tally doesn't match the vote.
FFS, doesn't anyone do any research before posting stories? 60 seconds of research would turn up the Wikipedia entry on End-to-end audible voting systems. The problem of being able to verify that your vote is recorded as you intended without revealing the actual content of your vote has been solved by several teams. The ones that seem to have the best handle on things are Scantegrity, Pret-a-Voter, and Punchscan (the predecessor of Scantegrity) .
Using Bitcoin (which in fact has anti-anonymity properties) as an engine for voting is like attaching a tractor to a horse carriage. It may get you where you want to go, but it's nothing like a proper motor vehicle.
--Paul
The summary also makes the assumption that low voter turnout is a big problem. This is an oft-repeated claim but there's zero evidence to suggest that increased participation rates equate to better results.
Low voter turnout breaks Democracy.
There are parts of the country with 1% or less voter turnout for primary elections.
This effectively means that only the most partisan candidates get onto the ballots.
If you don't see how that's a problem, you probably haven't been paying attention.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The machine should also issue a signed receipt: 'This (lottery/random) ID voted for X'
The voter is free to choose to keep this receipt or destroy it. If he keeps the receipt he risks being harassed by the thug but he can also prove it if his vote was registered incorrectly at the official registry.
The important point here is that as long as a fraction of the voters keep their receipt, any systematic fraud may be noticed. If a random 1/10 of the population keep their receipt then only ten(!) single votes can be me messed with in the election before someone is likely to step forward with a receipt pointing out the fraud: 'This receipt says ID12345 voted for X, but the official registry says ID12345 voted for Y. How come??'
-1 for pointing out the obvious. keep keeping yourselves ignorant, morons. "audit trail" = "not secret ballot". you're all idiots.
Because every candidate in the House is up for re-election every two years, accounting for 435 discrete elections, the Senate has 1/3rd of it's members up for re-election every two years, resulting in 33 discrete elections, and the Presidency is up for re-election every four years.
Why would you imagine such a process would result in all three having their majority be the same party?
Ken
I believe there are places where services, processes, and procedures can be enhanced and improved by being "online".
I don't think voting is one of them, at least not if the major problem we are trying to solve is "low voter turnout" (and saying that it's one of the "biggest problems in American democracy" is a very flimsy claim, IMHO).
I can't see how someone who cares enough about issues and candidates in a given race is not inclined to do whatever it takes to make a physical vote.
I understand that some people cannot make it to a voting location for a number of valid reasons (physically unable, out of country, etc). But my feeling is that those in this group who want to vote have already made provisions for it (mail-in ballots, absentee ballots, etc).
I think providing this "online" won't help the "IDGAF" crowd who don't care enough to understand any hot-button issues or races. Will they start caring because now they don't have to leave Starbucks to vote?
A low voter turnout is preferable to a vote that cannot be trusted. See http://www.velvetrevolution.us... Regards, Dave Hodgins
We are constantly told that millions of poor, minority, and women voters are incapable of securing and retaining photo ID to allow them to vote in an election that requires state-issued ID, how in the world will these same voters wrestle up the where-with-all to set up a secure Bitcoin identity, and be able to successfully vote by holding on to said Bitcoin identity?
Will setting up your required Bitcoin identity require voters to prove their identity? That's RACIST!
Ken
Well at least I can directly profit from my vote instead of giving it to an R or D to sell to the highest bidder.
Consider what low voter turnout does to the election process. If everyone voted the only thing that would matter is convincing 50% of the voters, no matter how little they care, that some issue (candidate, referendum etc..) was every so slightly more desirable. How much they care, the fact that 49% of the population might care intensely that something not happen while 51% only very mildly approve wouldn't matter.
On the other hand, because people often don't bother to vote, not only how many people want something to happen but also how much they want it matters. For instance (hypothetically) imagine a state initiative legalizing same sex marriage where a minority cares very strongly about gays having the right to marry while a slight majority finds the idea unpleasant and sees no reason to change things but doesn't care very much. Currently, the fact that that minority would turn out in greater numbers when the issue is on the ballot (or candidates who support/oppose gay marriage are running) means that their greater concern matters.
Isn't it better that, while everyone retains the right to vote whenever they want, a minority who cares greatly wields more weight on that issue than the indifferent majority?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I've contributed to the secure voting platform Agora Voting and from what I know they have already thought about using the blockchain, in part because bitcoin is sexy these days (as you can see from this article being in the frontpage of /.), but the problem is the blockchain can only process a limited number of transactions per second, it's messy. It's still a good idea, but it's not the end-all solution: for example a big problem is the census, you need a reliable list of secured voters.
[citation needed]
If the data were in something like the blockchain someone would eventually create a method by which it would be searchable. In fact the very tool that you would be able to use to validate your own results were in the blockchain would be the first step towards building the capability to index the blockchain and make it searchable. If any breadcrumb exists to tie the voter with their vote so they can look it up it will be a key back to the voter.
The major networks in the US used to given election updates throughout election day. It got to the point where they were projecting winners far before voting had even finished which caused people to stop going to the polls because they felt their vote no longer mattered. By publishing all votes in the blockchain you are in effect publishing the voting results as they happen. And, again any tool built to validate the blockchain would be able to index the results and give realtime updates of the election results. This will again skew results by influencing people negatively.
Then there's simply the fact that any encryption algorithm can and will be broken. You might build a voting mechanism which keeps things secure for one or two cycles, but the simple fact that the technology to cast votes would be on end user devices all over the world means that people would be taking the app apart to figure out how it works. Given enough time and resources any bad actor can eventually break an encryption algorithm. Once they do so they can rig elections until someone updates the algorithm. And, don't say it won't happen. Just look at the last presidential election when a handful of people were successfully prosecuted for having cast other people's absentee ballots. They felt it was their right to cast those votes for other people.
I don't care how noble the idea is. There is no way to guarantee the safety of elections either from duress, accidental skewing of results, or outright fraud if you use a distributed technology.
Please sit down, it might come as a big shock to you.
It is not a bug, it is the feature. Politicians do not want high voter turn out, they don't want informed voters either. The system is working as designed (by the politicians). How else can you square less than 20% approval ratings for congress with higher than 90% reelection rates for the incumbents?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Off hand I think yes, since most non-voters are younger, and many old people don't like computers stealing their medication, so presumably there would be a higher ratio of younger voters that traditionally lean Democrat...
But then, the electoral college system was put in place partly because most voters are fucking retarded. As I have seen nothing to refute that (and many "gee, he looks cute, I'll vote for him!" comments), it would seem to me that increasing voter turnout in general would just increase the volatility of the election process while increasing the effects of unscrupulous outside influence.
That being said, nothing with the current system deters reasonable voters. The system is not broken in that regard. The submission claims
Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primarie
How hard is it to pick up a pen and sign an absentee ballot? Lazy people that can't be bothered to do that aren't going to bother with signing up through some broken government site, checking their email for the activation code, and then returning to vote. Even if they do all that, do you think they're going to read the voter information material?
So then, who does electronic voting target when it is claimed to increase turnout? The stupid & lazy. But really, how much effort on that front is truly beneficial to the country?
People have developed quite clever algorithms for secure audit trails, but they require that each voter has private use of a secure computer.
That's the part that can't be solved technically. How can you prevent "I will pay you $x if you let me watch you vote for the correct candidate"? (Note that this was very common during the depression.)
Or what if my parent or landlord threatens to kick me out if I *don't* vote while they watch?
Not to mention the ample demonstrations of just what a large fraction of personal computers are running rootkits.
I just don't see how the problem of vote disclosure with the assistance of the voter can be prevented technically.
The problem is apathy, not voter turn out. The media are shills for powerful candidates and people don't take the time to do the research required to vote intelligently. Making it easier to vote jsut means that more sheeple are going to vote for whoever their church, employer, or biased news channel told them to vote for.
I'd prefer if it was actually harder to vote so less sheeple who don't really care won't make it to the polls and vote for another giant douche or turd sandwich. The less people that vote, the higher the chances of a third party candidate or someone who actually fights (vs paying lip service) for the underrepresented (IMO the middle class) gets into office.
the problem is illegals voting, dead people voting, etc.
This is already done by party affiliation which is public.
If you're in the republican party, you'll probably vote for... republicans!
ghash.io has secured the presidency for [insert whomever paid the most].
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
BUT I devised a receipt that is traceable back to the ballot and the voter. It serves the function to ensure that every voter votes ONLY once and enables the voter to validate that his vote was included in the vote tally and counted.
SO Bitcoin is just a ticket that makes the receipt service possible.
BUT the ballot embodies the vote itself is blinded by a one way hash function irreversible is sent on to the tally count.
Here's how to fix it. Do exactly what we do here in Australia. Make it compulsory for everyone to be on the electrol roll and have up-to-date details. Check this with tax file numbers, government payments, medical even door-to-door etc... Make it compulsory for everyone to vote and fine those who don't. Here's the voter turnout data for Australia.
Perhaps if we really had someone to vote for so we wouldn't feel we're giving a mandate to the lesser evil...
For their solution!
I'm not saying that low voter turnout isn't a problem.
But it's a problem of laziness, apathy and misinformation.
Bitcoin is just flat-out NOT equipped for solving those problems.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
and just noticed a voting nail?
The last time I looked into e-voting, David Chaum and others seemed to had already gone there raised a lot of relevant issues and proposed some interesting solutions that seemed to address the issues of verifying and counting votes the preserved anonymity and prevented such things as vote selling.
TFA didn't cite that work. Is that work outdated/wrong or is the author not aware of current state of the art WRT e-voting.
I'd be REALLY surprised if it were the latter.
Even if a bug-free method for online voting is developed, unless the majority of people are able to protect, maintain, and personally trust their own computers and networks (in other words, have all the competencies needed to configure and debug them at a very low level), online voting will still be subject to the same common tricks used by malware and by governments for online spying. As such, digital voting will never be a good idea for the majority of people, who don't even notice when their computer is acting odd...
Making it easier to vote by moving the action from a polling station to your pocket could only increase turnout, especially in the primaries.
There are many professional elections that have switched to online voting in France and every time the E-Voting proponents trumpeted the turnout boost this would no doubt bring. Unfortunately they have essentially been wrong every time.
The block chain of bitcoin wold add nothing to online voting. It is only the inital cryptographic signature on the transaction request that matters, not how many peer-to-peer miners have subsequently signed that request. Bitcoin is designed so that anyone can create theor own anonymous account and sign transactions out of that account with their private key. Voting would neccesarily have to rely on a gov't provided identity to verify the eligiability of the voter.
I have dwelled on and architected a pair of solutions that leverage the blockchain and other crypto-currency ideas into an electronic voting platform -- and there's still work to be done on my part.
From my research and analysis, the only pathway to success in the electronic voting space is to synthesize a core technology platform that is compatible across various political systems' core electoral rules. Then, apply the nuances of regional election laws and regulations to the adaptation of the core technology.
The core technology would contain some form of blockchain, but only to cover the span of an individual round of elections among a finite set of candidates and voters. The encryption keys and underlying one-way salts should be in the possession of the institution staging the election (i.e. authority who would declare the winners) while the entire encryption scheme should be public knowledge as to develop trust among the voters that the tech is trustworthy.
My proof of concept is already in the works at home... on my PC... which is turned off today... because I'm busy with my full-time job... sigh.
I don't really expect voters to be "experts" on the topics they're voting for. And at least in my own case, I often feel I'm vastly under-informed on what I'm about to vote on. (In reality, some of the people I'm asked to vote for haven't made any effort to publicize their views at all. This tends to happen with judges or folks in charge of treasuries or school-related positions pretty often. You'll often find someone standing near the polling place handing out a list of recommendations of who to vote for, for these things -- but that just tells you who wants to give the most money to the school or organization who made the flier.)
Regardless, I usually feel relatively informed on at least a few of the issues up for vote that I'm most interested in. Therefore, I go to cast votes on those issues, and I may just skip over the ones I have no real opinion on.
The problem I have is with apathetic voters who vote simply due to peer pressure. You can say all you want about them cancelling each other out (thanks to equal numbers voting for both sides of an issue) -- but I feel that every vote counted acts as evidence an individual supports the candidate the vote was cast for. When all of the candidates are lackluster or even guilty of previous corruption - I'd rather see them get very few votes on either side, then large numbers from all the disinterested and uninformed who just "pick one" at the polls.
... electronic systems that let people track their own votes can be used by others to track those votes.
The real point, and why it's illegal (in many jurisdictions) to show you how your vote was counted:
If you can prove to yourself your vote was counted for candidate Foo, you can prove to candidate Foo's campaign machine that your vote was counted for Foo, and collect the vote-buying money or other rewards. (Also: Strong-arm operations, like crooked unions, organized crime, and/or political machines, could get you to divulge your vote with various threats.)
But maybe it is time to ditch the secret ballot... at least for some things.
Absolutely not. The point of voting being secret is to keep people from intimidating voters into voting for someone other than their personal choice.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
That is the selling point, but the reality has been that the secret ballot has facilitated stolen elections and does very little to prevent voter intimidation. It may not be worth the trade in every circumstance.
Im afraid online voting will likely never be the catch-all solution we are seeking for any voting issues. The major issue being coercion. Voting not done in a private secure area is not valid voting. Home is secure you say? Well what about the republican husband and democratic wife? Will he/she coerce him/her into voting differently? Thats why the booths are so important.
This video is the best video I've ever watched on the issue, and could fix our entire system with a $5 hack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY
Democratic and Repubican forms of government are NOT based on such a premise.
The entire point of such forms is to avoid civil war. They do this by modelling the war - well enough that the faction that loses the election is convinced that, if they try to reverse the result by force of arms, they will lose that, too.
Low voter turnout is . If people don't care enough about an issue to fight for one side or the other, (let alone not caring enough to even examine the sides), not voting for a side picked randomly, or on the basis of name recognition or the like, does no harm.
Voting in such a circumstance may cause a lot of harm. Just like visibly corrupt elections, a visibly frivolous electorate reduces the ability of the election to convince the losers they've really lost. Further, it gives them the idea that they were cheated out of what they "deserved" and could win - giving them an opportunity to start a war AND claim the moral high ground in doing so.
Conversely, not voting when you would fight is a vo
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The third paragraph should begin:
Low voter turnout is not a problem.
And that last should be:
Conversely, if you would fight you should vote. Withholding your vote in such a circumstance also makes the election less convincing, increasing the destabilization of the government. An election boycott is a vote for genuine war.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Good god. This makes no sense whatsoever.
You follow the politiciand through the year to arrive at informed decision. You don't listen to what they say, instead you find out how they voted on subjects. That's what they really think, or at least vote for, and that is what matters. You may select the ones you follow by listening to what they speak. Then cofirm they vote how they preach. Then remember one name or number.
Also, don't know about you, but around here vote counting isn't some secret ritual that's forbidden for the common person. It's actually really easy to get to work as a volunteer counter yourself. How it works is all political parties assign counters and supervisors, and they are spread so they watch each others. Every ballot is verified by at least two persons from different parties. If they don't agree who the vote went for it gets examined further. The results from each ballot box are written down, verified by all counting parties, and then sent forward. From this point on it's all public, so you can't cheat after this, for everyone who was counting would know the numbers don't match to the numbers you counted. Basically I trust it because I KNOW what happens to the vote, and I could be counting it my self. And most likely, so could you.
This. I had no idea how confusing american voting can be.
Our national level votes (presidential and parlament votes) are never at the same time, are always public holidays (so almost anyone can vote. There is also absentee voting by mail and advance voting options), and you only write down one number. This is the number of the candidate you support. No other options, no confusion. If you can't figure out your candidates number it's better you don't vote. The voting booths have lists which list candidates by party, alphbetical, and ballot number orders. The numbers are also known before the voting day so candidates can let their voters know, so usually you already know the number you are going to write going in. Voting goes fast, usually no lines and no waiting time.
...the biggest problems in American democracy: low voter turnout...
Yes, I know, the subject is rather trite, but I think it sums up what the real problem in democracy is. For democracy to work, it isn't enough to get voters to vote; they have to understand what it is all about. You really need to educate yourself about what the different options are in an election, you need to understand - and agree with - the rules. How often do people actually know or care about what they are voting for or against? The way it works in America, most people prefer to vote with their 'gut-instinct', which is no more than the sum of vague prejudices, misunderstandings combined with passing whims and fads; those in power like it that way, because it means they have an easier time of it than the likes of mr Putin or the Chinese government. Power brokers fear nothing more than intelligent, well-educated people.
You don't need to vote, Bitcoin IS direct democracy by removing the most important pillar of brain control the governments have = FIAT currency.
Laws don't mean much once you lose control over the populace complacency.
Perfect timing with peak everything!
I've written this elsewhere. Two things that are absolutely essential for money - it must be scarce (eg, twigs and leaves won't do, but precious minerals work) and it cannot be falsified (eg hard to counterfeit, impossible to spend twice). Government issued currency tries to do this. There's always the risk that they will go printing a boatload of money (reducing scarcity, increasing inflation), but they try their best to make sure that the currency is hard to falsify - without this, there would be little to no trust in the currency. This is extremely simplified, but without those two predicates you cannot have a currency.
Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) solve these issues *for the first time in history* technologically. You no longer need a government that provides the scarcity and trust, as this is handled by how the coins are mined/minted, and the solving of the Byzantine Generals problem (preventing double spending). So, we have a currency without a government. But this doesn't mean we just get money out of it. We also get a new source of scarcity (which, ironically, is already quite abundant) and a new source of trust, the latter being dear indeed. The public ledger used by cryptocurrencies could also be used to sign agreements, record actions/discussions, all in the public ledger, all unfalsifiable and publicly verifiable. Rather than requiring a government bureaucrat to act as an independent, trustworthy third party, any and all details could be written to a public ledger over which no one entity has control.
This opens a new possibility for self governance. A technical issue remains - pseudo anonymity and anonymity. The ability to transact some operations anonymously - eg purchasing an item for personal use, or pseudo anonymously - purchasing said item with an identity tied directly to that merchant (think loyalty program). Personal identifiable information would remain encrypted. Root identities could be used to sign pseudo identities and would be difficult (but possible) to tie back to the root identity - with all access logged into the public ledger, and with good reason (eg if a pseudo identity is involved in a transaction that was fraudulent). For voting (and sidenote - by this I don't mean for politicians - for fucks sakes people, politicians all lie or are incapable of surviving the corrupting factors inherent on *all* professional politicians, it's time we look at using randomly selected representatives (sortition) who get an approval vote *AFTER* they've actually done what they are given time to do, *after* any new laws pass muster for issues related to human rights, corruption, etc. Approval vote would serve not only as to ensure democracy, but to give a bonus to the randomly selected representatives to actually do a proper job) root identities could be assigned a capability to vote and anonymized in some sort of manner as well.
Cryptocurrencies are revolutionary in that never before have the technological problems been solved. They open up entire vast avenues of removing third parties that existed solely for ensuring trust/scarcity (think stock/bond markets which act as authorized sellers for shares of corporations or debts, as another example). The *trust* built into cryptocurrencies is just as valuable, if not more, than the currency itself.
For better and for worse, the Swiss are a direct democracy (I live in Switzerland with my Swiss husband who votes) and they are constantly voting on issues throughout the year.
You receive in the mail your voting package which contains information about the issues that will be voted on written by each of the major parties. You can also go online and answer questions at election time and it will point out which candidate you mostly agree with. You fill out your voting material and drop it in any mailbox or at city hall (for free) and you are done. You could also probably walk somewhere and vote in person but I don't know anyone who has done that.
Turnout for voting is usually large because it is so easy to be informed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland
...want a incorruptable, transparent and true democracy? HA! Go back to sleep, slaves! Be happy with your food stamps and football (bread and circus).
Here in Colorado we just held an all mail in election. Every voter is mailed a ballot. You had roughly 3 weeks to do research and vote. I believe voter turnout was just over 70%. Certainly fewer excuses for not voting. Would also help fight voter fraud, if and when there is ever any evidence of this right-wing ruse designed to suppress voter turnout.
Might work better for something that can be shared and should be openly available, like patents.
Link them to blockchain, update blockchain when ownership transferred or patent is used.
Payments for use of patents in, you guessed it, blockchain.
Internationalizes and standardizes patents and patent payment.
The voting thing is simpler, people just need a serial number to look up their vote. Give them say 1j456tyr123 and when they get home they can look up that they voted for... "WHAT THE CONSERVATIVES!?!?!?!?! SOB! I didn't vote for them!"
Lots of posts here about how electronic voting can not be done anonymously yet still remain accountable.
Some research into the subject is recommended.
My favorite is ThreeBallot.
This got me to thinking: if we can invent a "good enough" electronic voting system, and in an age where communication is cheap and easy, why not go farther and consider a democratic system where every citizen is allowed to vote on any issue directly, if they choose, or a person could elect their own personal representative. So there would still be room for professional politicians. But some people would prefer to read blogs containing oppinions on issues, or decide on a per-issue basis to cast their vote independently from their chosen representative. Representatives would probably have a maximum limit of representees to avoid over-concentration of personal power. Political parties would either have no legal support or might even be legislated against. I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud so to speak.
For me, the two biggest problems with US politics are (1) lobbying and campaign finances and (2) the effectiveness of propaganda. The power of lobbying would be weaker if citizens retained their right to vote directly and independently on any issue they choose to. That would also encourage legislators to blog about what they are supporting and why. This might help them gain representees as well as swinging independent votes. The effectiveness of propaganda is a much tougher issue to deal with, but I believe that disrupting a two-party system would help, as would the teaching of propaganda analysis as part of the standard curriculum at the high school level. Hopefully others have better ideas.
And before you say "That'll never happen!" let me agree on that point but then refuse to let that stop me from dreaming. In modern times, what would a more effective democracy look like? The foundation of democracy is that people are intelligent and capable of self-government. Is that even a valid principle? If so, how could we implement it better?
Is the process too cumbersome?
Are people just apathetic?
Do people think they don't know enough to voice their opinion?
Or could it be that every fucking election is a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche?
First of all: There is no evidence that online voting increases turnout. There have been several elections studied from which it has been concluded that turnout has not gone up at all. So the major premise of this post is false, and not true.
Second: I don't know that I want to trust elections to something that has seen such up and down action as Bitcoin. It was designed for quite a different purpose. Can you guarantee anonymity? Can you explain exactly how anonymity and integrity are preserved? ... to Joe the plumber who may not even use email? If you can't make it absolutely clear how it works, then you are privileging those who can understand. But voting is a right, not a privilege.
Finally: How are you going to deal with malware, denial of service, etc.? Or bugs in the code? Are you going to get all the updates to the software run through the certification process every time someone updates the code? Remember that a US presidential election is going to be a 2 billion dollar operation by 2016, with a whole lot more than that at stake in who gets the government contracts depending on who wins the election. Are we sure that we can defend that fat a target against any and all hackers?
Voting in elections is NOT democracy;
Casteism
There's a reason why people don't vote, and it's not because the choices on the ballot are all so wonderful it hardly matters.
Reasons, actually.
One that doesn't get much attention is the pre-printed ballot, where the government decides who is a "first-class" candidate and who can only be elected as a write-in (where not prohibited by law).
This comes from a series of election "reform" laws enacted in the late 19th century, designed to make it harder for immigrants and their offspring, and other undesirables, to vote.
Voter turnout and election competitiveness declined to our current low levels over the next several decades as engaged voters left the electorate through attrition.
Details in "Why America Stopped Voting", by Mark L. Kornbluh. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde...
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Politics as a sublimated, ritualised substitute for war. Not sure I agree 100% (Clausewitz probably wouldn't) but worth thinking about nonetheless. Would mod you up if I could.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
e-Estonia has been doing this for years. It's old news for them. They don't even think about it anymore as it is normal.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/13/07/12/1830228/e-voting-source-code-made-public-in-estonia
One cool thing about it is that you can vote as many times as you want until the deadline, but only the last vote counts. So if you vote on Sunday before Tuesday's close but then change your mind, you just go back and change your previous vote.