Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Internet Voting?
coldfusion asks: "There's been a lot of talk about internet-based voting systems recently, in order to increase voter turnout & make the whole process more convenient. I know that the UK has such a system in the works. What about the US? Is anything like this in planning or discussion? If not, why not? If so, what kind of timetable might be involved? What will be used as security protocols (eg., PGP signing)? And another tangential question: is anything being done to eliminate the "unfairness" of voting in the US (and elsewhere)? Have alternate voting methods (approval, ranking, etc.) been considered by the US government? " Interesting questions. Although I agree that the internet will change the way we do things for the next century and beyond, I don't believe it's ready for voting. ESurely something like this will happen eventually, but not now.
Increasing voter turnout is not always a good thing. In the ideal democracy, those who care about a subject vote, and those who don't, don't.
Polluting the votes of those who care with those who don't risk random results, or worse, risks corruption due to the ease which the votes of those who don't care can be bought.
Increasing voter turnout by making it even easier than it is now to vote merely floods the votes of those who care (that is, they care enough to drop by at the voting booth on the way to work) with those who care so little they can't be bothered to do even that.
And what happens if the tabulating systems are running *cough* an operating system that is incapable of handling high load? Or what if that operating system isn't secure, or wide open to well know denial-of-service attacks?
A certainly more effective solution would be a dial-up type solution. (This eliminates most of the problems with internet voting.) Keep a redundant backup system, and enough modems to handle the task, and viola. (Keeping in mind, that this solution only works if the gov't is hell bent on getting voting into an online medium. In my opinion, it works the way it is now, and if it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
In Australia we have "optional preferential voting", which means you can rank the candidates from most to least prefered.
When it comes to counting, all the first ("primary") choices are added up. The candidate with the least primary votes is removed from the count and all their votes are given to their voters second preferences. This is repeated until someone has >50% of the vote.
Oh, and voting is compulsory.
In addition to a greater voter turnout being a bad thing, this doesn't make it easier for everybody. It means that the voting boots would get flooded by people who have the money to own computers and have Internet connections. People too poor to own a computer would still have to go to physical booths.
This would make the situation for poorer minorities even worse than it is already.
Well, I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's comment, something along the lines of "Democracy is the worst political system possible, except for all the rest."
I've come to respect the two-party winner-take-all voting system in the US. When I was younger, I preferred a parliamentary system, but I came to realize that most of them tend to give splinter parties too much leverage (especially the systems in place in Israel and Italy). The workings of our democracy may be ponderous and slow, but the founders thought that was a good thing!
The principle of one-man-one-vote is extremely important to American democratic ideals (although it isn't enshrined in law quite the way people think it is). The electoral college is a bit of a tinker-toy mechanism in between the popular vote and the presidential selection, but it nearly always validates that popular vote (there were a couple of 19th century exceptions) -- and what people forget is that it reinforces the idea that we are a Federal Republic that represents the interests of 50 quasi-independent states. Heaven forfend things should ever require it, but the electoral college provides a means for the states to prevent a fraudulent election.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool populist, but I don't believe in the idea that "more people would vote if it were easier".
The reforms I do support:
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
This is claptrap.
Can you name any famous dictators from history? Did any of them happen to come to power with the support of the lower classes (the majority), and with the intention of putting down the aristocracy? Hmmm, let's see now.... maybe we can make a list of them:
The people who wrote the constitution wanted to avoid direct election of the chief executive because they knew that the worst tyrants generally do enjoy the support of the lower classes. You can't be a tyrannical oppressor without enjoying support from somebody, and preferably from a good number of people.
The purpose of the electoral college was not to "maintain their grip on the lower class". It's purpose was to be a final, last-ditch check on the potential rise of a dictator. This is why the electoral college is composed of people who do not otherwise hold office under the US (no Senators, Congressmen or Governers, etc.) and it's also why the electors have to meet in their respective states. It's a lot harder to bully them if they are all spread out. The US has never been threatened by the rise of a dictator, the electoral college has never overturned the outcome of any election, ever.
Can you name any American elections in which the outcome of electoral college elections did not match the actual election results? How many times did this happen? In the instances where it happened, can you explain why it happened? Can you name any facts which support your idea that the electoral college has prevented the rise of any candidates, against the will of the lower classes? Can you offer any facts at all?
If the purpose of the electoral college was to maintain a grip on the lower classes, then why did the electoral college elect Abraham Lincoln? Surely he was one man they would have wanted to get rid of. Right? So what's your explanation?