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.

Comments

Bad Mistake

[Accipiter]

Enacting a political voting system over the internet lends itself to way too many possible problems. Potential system crackers, as well as multiple votes from one person (Spoofed IPs), cryptography signatures, system malfunctions, etc. In a traditional voting scenario, if there was a problem with the votes, a miscount would be called. Are you going to do that with every glitch in an internet system?

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?

Voting system...

[srn_test]

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.

Voting should be for people who care to vote.

[DHartung]

If you're too lazy to vote, well, you just voted. If you don't know enough about the candidates, stay the heck away from the voting booth.

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:

• move all election days to either Saturday or Sunday
  
• standardized voting hours for Presidential elections (e.g. 8am EST to 8pm PST, *everywhere*)
  
• *voluntary* voting registration at the DMV (i.e. make it easy, but not automatic)
  
• Wisconsin-style open primaries with voting-day registration
  
• a reformed primary/caucus schedule that rotates them so that all states get an equal chance to be a bellwether (like NH and IA always get to be) or an also-ran (like CA ended up being) [the states attorneys general have a plan, but it takes the legislatures to agree and cooperate]
  
• secondary benefit of the above: a shortened presidential campaign, to prevent voter burnout