Voting should be OPEN and ELECTRONIC

[PoliticalCitizen]

Isn't it time to move ahead in voting technology? We as taxpayers have spent a lot of money setting up and staffing polling stations. Wouldn't you prefer to vote over the internet from the convenience of your home? Would that not increase the number of voters?

And to ensure there's no fraud - why not vote openly? It doesn't have to be open to everybody, just you and the appropriate government agencies. Then you could log in to Elections Canada and verify that your vote is correctly placed.

What was the purpose of secret voting? Are people afraid of retribution for their vote in today's society?

All it creates is the possibility of fraud.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Greg
Edited thread title

[Riverwind]

What was the purpose of secret voting? Are people afraid of retribution for their vote in today's society?

Many people have home or work situations where their voting preference would create difficulties if known.

Paper ballots are perhaps the best system to prevent fraud because there is a physical document that can be verified by anyone. You lose that verifiability as soon as software or networks are introduced into the mix.

I don't think we need to waste time with internet polling. If people are too lazy to get off their butt and go to a polling booth then they don't really deserve the right to vote.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[independent]

Isn't it time to move ahead in voting technology? We as taxpayers have spent a lot of money setting up and staffing polling stations. Wouldn't you prefer to vote over the internet from the convenience of your home? Would that not increase the number of voters?

And to ensure there's no fraud - why not vote openly? It doesn't have to be open to everybody, just you and the appropriate government agencies. Then you could log in to Elections Canada and verify that your vote is correctly placed.

What was the purpose of secret voting? Are people afraid of retribution for their vote in today's society?

All it creates is the possibility of fraud.

Yes. Employers could frown on your choice of candidates and not promote you. You may be shunned from a church or group because of your vote.etc. Not to say the internet will not work but it would have to be kept secret. If people can using it for banking you should be able to use it for voting.

[M.Dancer]

The secret ballot is the hallmark of democracy. End of Story.

[kengs333]

Isn't it time to move ahead in voting technology? We as taxpayers have spent a lot of money setting up and staffing polling stations. Wouldn't you prefer to vote over the internet from the convenience of your home? Would that not increase the number of voters?

No.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Paper ballots are perhaps the best system to prevent fraud because there is a physical document that can be verified by anyone.

As we all know paper ballots were not easily verifiable and certainly far from the best system in the US elections in 2000.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Yes. Employers could frown on your choice of candidates and not promote you. You may be shunned from a church or group because of your vote.etc. Not to say the internet will not work but it would have to be kept secret. If people can using it for banking you should be able to use it for voting.

Employers do not have access to your banking details today. They will not be allowed access to the election data in the future.

[M.Dancer]

As we all know paper ballots were not easily verifiable and certainly far from the best system in the US elections in 2000.

Those weren't "paper" ballots. They are meant to be read by a machine.

Anyway, think Diebold....

[PoliticalCitizen]

The secret ballot is the hallmark of democracy. End of Story.

Your trademark one-liner lacks substance this time.

[PoliticalCitizen]

No.

I appreciate the brevity of your 1-bit answer.

Would you care to substantiate?

[Argus]

As we all know paper ballots were not easily verifiable and certainly far from the best system in the US elections in 2000.

Electronic voting make massive voter fraud far too possible. So no.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

Your trademark one-liner lacks substance this time.

No they don't. Find anyplace or organization that employs non secret voting and you find a sham democracy.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Electronic voting make massive voter fraud far too possible. So no.

Not if it's OPEN. The government could ask you to verify your vote online.

[stignasty]

As it sits we have a system that is quick and reliable. The threat of ballot box stuffing is lessened by keeping count of people at the polling station. The fact that ID is now required tightens it up even more. We don't have allegations of fixed machines or "hanging chads," why should we change our system?

[PoliticalCitizen]

No they don't. Find anyplace or organization that employs non secret voting and you find a sham democracy.

There's a support movement vor open ballot voting in USA:

http://www.openballotvoting.org/

[Riverwind]

As we all know paper ballots were not easily verifiable and certainly far from the best system in the US elections in 2000.

I have more faith in a hanging chad than an electronic record produced by someone poking a touch screen. In fact, the physical records with the hanging chads are the reason why we know there were problems. If similar problems existed with the electronic machines we would never know because there is no way to audit the vote after the fact. Edited October 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[PoliticalCitizen]

As it sits we have a system that is quick and reliable. The threat of ballot box stuffing is lessened by keeping count of people at the polling station. The fact that ID is now required tightens it up even more. We don't have allegations of fixed machines or "hanging chads," why should we change our system?

Firstly - may I remind you the vote re-count and associated questionable decisions that put Bush in power in 2000.

Secondly - it would not only get rid of the polling stations but also of the paper records.

Thirdly - increase voter turnout (everyone knows the "unless it rains" phrase) by allowing people (such as remote and disabled) and out-of-the-country (such as our Afghan soldiers) easy access to the electoral mechanism.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I have more faith in a hanging chad than an electronic record produced by someone poking a touch screen. In fact, the physical records with the hanging chads are the reason why we know there were problems. If similar problems existed with the electronic machines we would never know because there is no way to audit the vote after the fact.

Almost all records for most companies are electronic nowadays. If you think that they are easy to break into or forge then you may have a wrong impression about the state of IT today.

Paper is out. Databases are in. It all happened in the last century.

[Riverwind]

Firstly - may I remind you the vote re-count and associated questionable decisions that put Bush in power in 2000.

Recounts that were only possible because there was a paper audit trail.

Secondly - it would not only get rid of the polling stations but also of the paper records.

Polling stations and paper records are essential to ensuring the integrity of the system.

Thirdly - increase voter turnout (everyone knows the "unless it rains" phrase) by allowing people (such as remote and disabled) and out-of-the-country (such as our Afghan soldiers) easy access to the electoral mechanism.

I don't care about voter turn out. Those that are unable to get to a polling station have the option of a mail in ballot. Those that are able but don't vote are just lazy and don't deserve to vote.

[cybercoma]

What about people that don't have access to the internet, or are not comfortable using computers? What about voter fraud by hacking the system or casting multiple votes through a system of proxies? What about problems with servers being overloaded and crashing or losing all of the information before the votes can be tallied? What about people who don't their name in a government database associating them with whom they vote?

Voting should be open and electronic, I don't think so. The system we have now is better in every way, other than spurring voter turnout.

[Riverwind]

Almost all records for most companies are electronic nowadays. If you think that they are easy to break into or forge then you may have a wrong impression about the state of IT today.

I live and breath the stuff. I could easily design and build an extremely secure electronic voting system but when it comes to voting I would not trust it nor expect anyone else to. Verifiable paper records are the only way to go. Edited October 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[PoliticalCitizen]

What about people that don't have access to the internet, or are not comfortable using computers?

Well I guess there would have to be a gradual transition.

What about voter fraud by hacking the system or casting multiple votes through a system of proxies?

There are electronic IDs issued by the federal government that are quite secure. Biometrics could also be used (such as fingerprint, face and voice recognition).

What about problems with servers being overloaded and crashing or losing all of the information before the votes can be tallied?

That's a non-issue. If you believe our systems are THAT prone to error than you shouldn't have any money in the bank.

What about people who don't their name in a government database associating them with whom they vote?

It is better than knowing their ballot could have been forged and having no way of checking.

[PoliticalCitizen]

I live and breath the stuff. I could easily design and build an extremely secure electronic voting system but when it comes to voting I would not trust it nor expect anyone else to. Verifiable paper records are the only way to go.

Do you trust the banks with your money or keep paper bills under your pillow?

[cybercoma]

Well I guess there would have to be a gradual transition.

There are electronic IDs issued by the federal government that are quite secure. Biometrics could also be used (such as fingerprint, face and voice recognition).

How gradual? I have friends in their 20s that don't even own a computer. Sure, that's probably the exception; however, they're out there and they're just as entitled to vote as anyone else. If the government makes it mandatory to vote online are they going to provide funding to people to purchase computer and pay a monthly internet bill?

How much do you think it would cost to issue these electronic IDs or setup biometric identification systems? It would certainly be so prohibitive that this is not a viable solution. Regardless, what about people who do not wish to be fingerprinted or have biometric information in a government database? How would they vote? Personally, I've never been in any sort of legal trouble, but I would be iffy about having biometric info at the disposal of the government.

[Riverwind]

Do you trust the banks with your money or keep paper bills under your pillow?

There is a difference between me trusting the bank to keep my invidual financial records straight and having the population trust the system of voting. A democratic government does not have legimacy if the people don't trust the voting system. Right now people do trust the voting system in Canada. There are a number of reasons for that but one of the big ones is the paper trail that can be idepedently verified after the fact.

The US has a mish-mash of electronic voting systems and you are see people lose trust in the system. It will only get worse.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Riverwind