Ask Slashdot: We've Had Online Voting; Why Not Continuous Voting? (iamnotanumber.org)

periegetes writes: This idea has been bugging me for a while. It takes months to organize a physical election, and several days to count the results, so it makes sense that we don't organize elections every day. However, with the computing resources at our disposal, it would be child's play to setup a site where every citizen could vote for (or against) proposed laws themselves, and could even change their vote at all times, cutting out the middle man and restoring true democracy to the world. That last part may be a stretch, but I, for one, would feel more involved in my government if I didn't have to watch it screw up for years before getting another say in it. I've found precious few articles discussing the matter, which usually means I'm missing an obvious problem. Why, in the age of Big Data and petaflops, don't we consider continuous voting?

Comments

SIgh

[ledow]

You're away on holiday.

An important vote you care about gets put up.

You want to change your vote, but can't because of whatever reason (no Internet, etc.)

Do you end up voting by default the way you voted last time? Or do you have to put in a vote between a certain window?

Oops. You either have a stupid situation, or you're back to the old way of voting.

Not to mention that it requires electronic voting which - in any significant amount - is still not as provable, prevalent or as tamper-proof as it could be.

Re:SIgh

[Mr D from 63]

Aside from the many problems with identity and security and creating a huge cyber security target, the last thing we need is mob mentality reactionary voting and continuous campaign propaganda on every little thing that needs voted upon.

Re:SIgh

[mlts]

This basically puts control of an entire nation directly into the hands of whomever can hack the results of the voting system. With the issues of security that have popped up with e-voting, even normal voting requires paper receipts, via a Chaumian system, so people can verify their vote actually applied.

A constant voting system will be a big target for every single blackhat on the planet. All they need to do is just flip a few votes, and they can fundamentally change the direction the government goes in extremely subtle ways.

Voting is too sensitive to have it be on the Internet without a verifiable paper trail as it stands. Adding continuous voting just makes things worse.

Re:SIgh

[Jack9]

> This basically puts control of an entire nation directly into the hands of whomever can hack the results of the voting system

Just like it is now? Except it's easier when there's fewer elections. This concern is not limited to this continuous voting ideal. The question of "should policy be shaped by public mass opinion" is the important one.

Re: SIgh

[meglon]

In a direct democracy, that's exactly what would happen. We live in a constitutional republic, which is basically indistinguishable from a representative democracy. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Several of the founding fathers had very negative feelings towards democracy, give the only democracies around at the time were direct democracies. They saw tyranny of the majority play out, where what they believed to be inalienable rights could be stripped from people purely by the vote of the majority. A great example of that is these people who claim that states should have the right to vote on whether or not to allow same sex marriage. That is a classic example of tyranny of the majority.

The constitution doesn't empower the majority, it restricts them from committing tyranny of the majority and subjugating the minority to the majority's whims.

Re: SIgh

[Grishnakh]

-1 Dumb.

First, a constitutional republic IS a representative democracy. They're two names for the same thing, though the former is more accurate because it describes how the government is set up better (like having a constitution for one); "representative democracy" is more general but distinguishes it from direct democracies.

Secondly, the bit about the founders makes no sense. There haven't been any true direct democracies running nations since the Ancient Greeks. Britain didn't even have a constitutional republic, it had a monarchy with a parliament bolted on to deal with some of the more mundane stuff the King didn't want to waste time on. These days, it's no different except the Queen doesn't really do anything as far as governing and Parliament does it all along with the Prime Minister et al.

As for states voting on same-sex marriage, how's that any different from the federal government voting on same-sex marriage? The whole "states' rights" argument is an argument over how much power different levels of government should be allowed to have, but they're all basically the same, since they're all representative democracies, whether it's the federal government, the state government, or your town council or board of aldermen or whatever. It's just the the higher up you go, the less power your vote has, and the more you're subject to laws passed by people voted in by a larger number of people from farther away. Sometimes it works out well (from your perspective), other times it doesn't, and it entirely depends on the issue and your opinion.

So while I do agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, as a counterexample look at marijuana: the only reason it's legal (either fully or medical) in many states is because those states thumbed their nose at the federal government and legalized it themselves, and refused to enforce federal drug laws. One of those states is Washington State, which fully legalized it a while back, and that's not exactly known as a conservative state or one involved in the Civil War. More recently, their neighbors Alaska and Oregon joined them. Alaska's pretty conservative (but not like the South), but Oregon's a seriously liberal place; you can't even pump your own gas there!

So, are you opposed to legal pot because the federal government hasn't legalized it yet? With all the Republicans in Congress (especially the ones from the South), it probably would never have happened if those states hadn't pushed the issue themselves. It's looking like the Federal government is going to stop the ban really soon and just let states decide, though with the election coming up it's impossible to say what'll happen.

Also with same-sex marriage, that was done first in a bunch of states because the SCOTUS finally ruled on it. It probably would never have been legalized at the federal level if it weren't for the Court; there's no way all those Republicans would vote for it. So yes, that is an example of tyranny of the majority, but that's the problem with large governments and making decisions at the top level: you can only pass stuff that everyone agrees with. If you're a social liberal/libertarian and you're sharing a nation with a bunch of backwards religious conservatives, then you're not going to have much luck getting socially-liberal legislation passed, since you're forever going to be fighting against a bunch of morons who want to mandate that science classes teach your kids that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Notice that the nations which have much more effective democracies (excuse me, "constitutional republics", since some dipshit will probably jump in here to say these aren't "democracies"; it happens every single fucking time I use the term here) are small European nations which have small populations (like the size of one of our small-to-medium size states) and are culturally and ethnically mostly homogeneous. There's a reason for this: they don't have radically different blocs of voters constantly fighting each other on every l

Re: SIgh

[careysub]

-Britain didn't even have a constitutional republic, it had a monarchy with a parliament bolted on to deal with some of the more mundane stuff the King didn't want to waste time on. These days, it's no different except the Queen doesn't really do anything as far as governing and Parliament does it all along with the Prime Minister et al.

Says someone without a clue about British political history.

The Crown has not had any significant role in governance since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 when Parliament inf effect fired the King and hired a new monarch. Since that time the Crown has been acutely aware that it serves at the pleasure of Parliament, who holds all of the reigns of power.

You second sentence seems to be aware of the real situation (but which has not changed since the American Revolution), though you preface it with the strange statement " These days, it's no different except..." and then go on the describe a situation which is completely different.

Re:SIgh

[Grishnakh]

The early USA had a government that resembled China's more than it does today's government. Remember, back then, only white male landowners were allowed to vote. That effectively kept a good portion of the population away from the voting booth, so that only the elites could choose the governmental leaders. It wasn't until later that non-landowners were allowed to vote, and later women, and later black people (the last one didn't really happen until the late 1960s).

Remember, China isn't a dictatorship, it's basically a cabal. The elites of society are the ones who run the "Communist" Party, and they choose the leaders. Not that different from the early USA.

Republic vs Democracy

[slasher999]

Here in the US at least, and honestly it should be the same elsewhere, we don't want an actual Democracy due to the downfalls of that system. In effect a true, pure democracy will always devolve into anarchy and eventually a dictator will rise to power and effectively enslave the population. The US system is designed to provide a modified democratic system with protections against the outcome I just described. This is well documented elsewhere, I've provided a pointer in what I believe is the correct direction for finding the answer.

Re:Republic vs Democracy

[SumDog]

I have always been in favour of people voting on individual issues rather than for representational democracy. We have the technology; that is if we can get citizens to keep up with passphrases and singing keys. There is lies the problem. That old Winston Churchill quote about people will be dissuaded from democracy by a six minute conversation with the average voter.

But if you start creating basic logic tests for voters, you get into Jim Crow era.

Democracy is a broken system. To every person who says, "It's worked great for n years," you need to take a step back, look objectively at the West and realize the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran, twice, to maintain oil reserve. The US is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in South America and heads of state that are elected on the premise of returning wealth to their nations often die in airplane crashes.

Giving ever individual the power to vote on ever issue would distribute that injustice on a wider population. People are very easily persuaded by advertisements. Elected officials often come into power because they can afford their campaigns. In the most progressive election systems like in Australia (order of preference; no first past the post; mandatory voting -- it is literally impossible to throw your vote away unless you go in and put an X on your ballot) they still elect idiotic parties like that one that put Tony Abbot in power.

It would probably be easier to industry to persuade the general population than just a few congressmen, and non-profits don't have the energy to take that on every day. ...you know .. now that I think about it. Maybe that system wouldn't be worse at all. In reality, it would be no better or worse than the situation is currently. It's mostly because your vote doesn't really matter. If you think it does, remember that from the early 1980s until 2012, there was always a Bush or Clinton within 5 people in the line of succession for the presidency. In America, we elect kings and queens.

Re:Republic vs Democracy

[angel'o'sphere]

Here in the US at least, and honestly it should be the same elsewhere, we don't want an actual Democracy due to the downfalls of that system. In effect a true, pure democracy will always devolve into anarchy and eventually a dictator will rise to power and effectively enslave the population.
Tell that the Swiss.

The US system is designed to provide a modified democratic system with protections against the outcome I just described.
No it is not. You are governed or herded by a money aristocracy, or call it the oligarchy of the 1% super rich.

Bad Idea

[jeepies]

Generally, the electorate isn't informed enough on issues to make good decisions. One of the reasons we have elected representatives in office for 2, 4, 6, etc. years is to provide some stability. People's views change on a whim. Watching one news special about a particular issue can swing views wildly.

This kind of direct voting would result in utter chaos. Nothing's more fickle than public opinion, and it's impossible to get anything done when changing direction at the speed of the news cycle.

Already have continuous voting...

[QuietLagoon]

It's called social media's likes, follows and re-tweets.

.
I'm not sure applying such a concept to anything important is a good thing.

E-voting is a stupendously bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

A fundamental tenet of democracy is that voting is secret, and that the counting process is transparent. E-voting provides none of these. I'm aware that there are cryptographic protocols that would allow this in theory, but this does not resolve the issue of the voters being coerced by their spouses, families, communities or big brother to vote a certain way. Only casting your vote anonymously inside the voting booth prevents this. Further, having a verifiable paper trail and manual counting makes fraud MUCH more difficult. In E-voting, you only have to alter a single number to sway the election in your favor. In traditional voting, throwing a whole election becomes much harder.

Even if we assume that we go the E-voting path, how can we trust the software running on the system? Who wrote it? Me? Then I know who the next president will be! We can cook up all kinds of hashes etc, but how can you verify that a system that claims to run a particular version of the code is, in fact, running this version? Particularly on a remote connection? Even if all this were, in some fictional universe, in place, this system is highly complex: In code, in technology, in infrastructure. I may be able to grasp this, but my mother (a smart woman, but not tech savvy) won't have a clue. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI

no

[phantomfive]

Because as bad as politicians are, they are still better-informed than the general population.
I don't want government looking like a Facebook feed.

Why not direct democracy?

[Locke2005]

I think the 2-party system is seriously flawed when the parties can lock out people like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. Why not move from representative democracy to direct democracy now that we have the technology in place? Would it be more or less susceptible to corruption than the current system? The electoral college is a curious anachronism, a remnant of times when it took days to collect votes and transport them all to one place, so at least some of the current system is seriously outdated. Is it possible to make it instant but still secure? One form of security would be to allow each voter to verify their vote online after the fact. Any other ideas?

Re:Why not direct democracy?

[KGIII]

The slavery thing... Well, it's a matter of perspective. That they argued about it at all is actually an indication of improvement. This is hard to explain but I've done a fair bit of reading on the subject because a part of my heritage is descended from Black African slaves who fought on the side of the English during the Revolution. (It's a neat story but I'm not going to share it all tonight unless you really want me to type it out.)

Anyhow, to the point (and it's not much of a point), we must look at things in perspective. This is not an attempt to wipe it away or to minimize it, it's wrong and was always wrong even if there were people who felt it was perfectly justified.

See, to them it was normal. In 200 years we'll have people looking back at us and thinking we were uncultured, barbaric, ignorant, evil, and worse. The things you do today will be considered an abomination tomorrow by those who wish to judge you their lesser.

Keep in mind, it wasn't a bunch of white people running around with nets to catch fine specimens. No, it was black people selling their brethren into slavery. They too were making use of slave labor. Those "Slavic" countries? Err... Yeah, not even all slaves where black.

An article on Slashdot, a day or two ago, was about the targets for nukes. Many of us thought it was deplorable. Yet, you weren't there. (I wasn't even born yet - I was born in '57 and the list was made in '56.) What nobody in that thread mentioned was that the USSR had started targeting American population centers and the USA responded in kind. Then long-range missiles came out and there was a bit of a gentleman's agreement (likely violated) where they agreed to go back to targeting military infrastructure instead.

Times, perspective, and values change. What you're doing, right now as you read this, may be considered a crime against humanity in 200 years. It's okay to judge and to judge harshly but I think it's important to understand the environment and perspectives. Ethics are situational, though we might say that morals are not but those are often influenced by perspective.

Proof of why this is a bad idea

[WoodstockJeff]

"Protip: it's generally a good idea to read all of something before commenting on or replying to it, even if your finger gets tired."

The vote would be based upon the latest headline flashed at the most people. However the latest twitter celeb of the hour felt, would become the law.

And, of course, being able to "change your vote" means that, somewhere, the way that you voted is recorded... so that you can be tracked down if you voted "the wrong way".

Disaster warning here

[GPS Pilot]

The current system, which limits the number of entitlement programs voters can vote for themselves, has created an $18.8 trillion national debt and what's far scarier, over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities: http://usdebtclock.org/

If those limitations were removed, I'd expect such an orgy of debt that the U.S. would have no choice but to default or careen into hyperinflation.

As they say, "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

Direct democracy is a terribly bad idea

[golodh]

The reason is that the unfortunately average Joe is a complete ignoramus as far as facts, context, history, law, and consequences are concerned (being aware of the facts (e.g. by reading reports) is a full-time job for people with high qualifications. Joe Sixpack could never cope, especially not in his spare time). That's why we have career-officials and functionaries (e.g. diplomats, analysts, administrators, lawyers, economists, etc.) running the day-to-day show

In addition he doesn't understand other people's reasoning (and isn't interested in trying), can't think straight (leaves gaps in reasoning and lacks the stamina to address them) is far too emotional to deal in a sane way with complex policy issues. jumps to conclusions, and has the attention span of a goldfish (and therefore hardly never learns, except the most basic facts).

That is the reason we have a representative democracy, not a direct one. Elected politicians look after the medium-term tactics, and direct the professionals. That doesn't always pan out, but more often than not it works quite well.

Technical issues aren't important. If desired we could have set up nation-wide monthly referenda since the advent of the telegraph.

The thing the average voter can sort of be trusted with is (a) judging people (running for office) (b) choosing between to opposing world views, and (c) choosing to adopt or reject certain fundamental ideas.

That's sort of doable for almost anyone: if people make a mess of things, vote 'em out and go with the competition. It also allows people to decide on questions of principle (but only after they have been assessed by functionaries and elected officials)

The electorate (in our case) works like a final court of appeal, but also as a "noisy" arbitrator: individual opinions run the gamut from smart, insightful, and perhaps even noble to dumb, blind, and venal with terrible extremes. Fortunately _on average_ our electorate seems to have done fairly well over the past few centuries.

Direct democracy would be terribly noisy, incredibly volatile, over-emotional, and would in general serve us very very badly.

So lets leave day-to-day affairs to officials, short-term politics to representatives, and genuine questions of principle to the electorate.

Re:Representative Proxy Votes

[Rei]

This is a serious issue, and why I think that "liquid" democracy - the hybrid of direct and representative democracy - is critical.

There are way too many issues that come up for consideration every day for every citizen to be expected to vote on them. Some people might be that hardcore but few actually ever will. So if you don't want representatives then on the vast majority of votes only a tiny fraction of the public will vote. The smaller the percentage of the population that votes, the easier it will be for vested interests to get basically whatever they want. It's a recipe for basically giving corporations and wealthy individuals everything that they could ever dream of.

In liquid democracy, you can direct-vote whenever you want and choose representatives - who you can change whenever you want, and who can be anyone at all - to fill in for you when you can't. You may even be able to pick different people for different categories of votes. And if a person you pick isn't active enough for every vote, they too can have representatives - votes "flow" in the order of assignment, and if a person ever doesn't like it, they can change it at will.

Direct democracy without something like that would be IMHO one of the worst systems imagineable.