Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[CAMP]

Online voting is a great idea, especially if you favour, as I do, direct democracy. In my opinion I believe there would be a great deal of support for such a concept. I think any political party worth its salt would slip the concept into their next platform. This kind of thing would work toward dealing with voter apathy. That is the real demon, the democratic disease of apathy.

Getting folks to participate in the political process may or may not provide better government, that is up to the individual to decide. The point is, the technology is there, and the concept is there, yet politicians seem to be a long ways from supporting it. It would in fact detract from their power, and that is what you face with this scenario.

Bingo Jerry, you have hit the nail right on the head in so many ways. Big partisan partyies and their leaders are deathly afraid of bringing in online voting because they know it will erode their strangle hold on government and put democracy back in the hands of the people. When as low as 30% of the popular vote can control a whole country and call it democracy there is something really wrong.

The only federal party in formation I know of (correct me if I'm wrong) is the Canadian Alternative Members Party CAMP www.canadian-alternative.com and I'm definetly supporting them from now on.

[tomcat]

There's mail in ballots and advance polls...

Sooo big deal, who the hell wants to send away to get one, wait for it, fill it out, put it in an envelope, lick it, stick it, and walk to a mail box, when I can get on my black berry and in seconds be done with it.... jeezzzzzzz

wake up and smell the coffee bud!

Time is money!

[eyeball]

e-democracy

I think the vast majority of opinion expressed in favour of maintaining the status quo has a lot more to do with the fear that increasing voter turnout will not favour conservative parties.

The proof of this pudding are that most of the same individuals who are against expanding democracy with technology also get chest-pains and diarreah at the prospect of mandatory voting to increase turnout. That's the real bug they've got up their butts, increasing voter turnout.

[ToadBrother]

e-democracy

I think the vast majority of opinion expressed in favour of maintaining the status quo has a lot more to do with the fear that increasing voter turnout will not favour conservative parties.

The proof of this pudding are that most of the same individuals who are against expanding democracy with technology also get chest-pains and diarreah at the prospect of mandatory voting to increase turnout. That's the real bug they've got up their butts, increasing voter turnout.

A few points. First of all, I'm not against e-voting per se, but as someone with some knowledge of the Internet, making it secure is very difficult. Even such supposedly high-security portals as banking and credit card sites aren't always as secure as we would like to think. The problems with voting machines in the States should make us approach this cautiously.

As to mandatory voting, my understanding from the experiences of Australia is that it tends to favor the incumbent, so I don't know why the powers-that-be would be all that frightened by it. I know that it's been toyed with by the various elections agencies in Canada, and I know the Chief Electoral Officer in my province (BC) was seriously considering recommending it, but the issue is, as always, a balancing of rights. There are groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are opposed on religious grounds to voting, and as ridiculous as I think that is, I wouldn't want to see people compelled or fined because of their religious beliefs.

[eyeball]

A few points. First of all, I'm not against e-voting per se, but as someone with some knowledge of the Internet, making it secure is very difficult. Even such supposedly high-security portals as banking and credit card sites aren't always as secure as we would like to think. The problems with voting machines in the States should make us approach this cautiously.

I agree.

As to mandatory voting, my understanding from the experiences of Australia is that it tends to favor the incumbent, so I don't know why the powers-that-be would be all that frightened by it. I know that it's been toyed with by the various elections agencies in Canada, and I know the Chief Electoral Officer in my province (BC) was seriously considering recommending it, but the issue is, as always, a balancing of rights. There are groups, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are opposed on religious grounds to voting, and as ridiculous as I think that is, I wouldn't want to see people compelled or fined because of their religious beliefs.

I suppose I wouldn't want to either, the last thing the world needs is more inflamed religous people. Perhaps a small tax exemption would be a better incentive, or would that piss people off even more?

[Smallc]

If you only have to drive 5 minutes to get to your polling station, then I wouldn't call it a rural area, I would call it the outskirts of the city. For people who have to drive 20 minutes, now that's a rural area.

Yes, my town of 175 people thats the hub of for a small reserve and 2 metis settlements is on the outskirts of a city.....Winnipeg and Brandon are each 3 hours away.

[Riverwind]

I think the vast majority of opinion expressed in favour of maintaining the status quo has a lot more to do with the fear that increasing voter turnout will not favour conservative parties.

Really? So you are saying that people who favour left wing parties are more likely to be lazy whiners who expect society to pander to their whims? I would be inclined to agree but I am surprised to see you admit it.

[punked]

Really? So you are saying that people who favour left wing parties are more likely to be lazy whiners who expect society to pander to their whims? I would be inclined to agree but I am surprised to see you admit it.

I just didn't read that in what you quoted but that is me. Know what I change my vote after what Riverwind just said. I am for online voting and will be now for the rest of my life I think.

[capricorn]

More than 7 out of 10 households reported owning a computer in 2005. Nearly 96% of the highest income households had a computer, and 93% had Internet access from home. In comparison, 4 out of 10 households in the lowest income group had a computer, and one-third had home access to the Internet.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...061212b-eng.htm

There would have to be a system in place to accommodate voters who don't have a computer at home. As indicated by the stats, those are in the lower income bracket.

There's also the fact that the present system provides temporary employment at the polls for people who need the extra cash. With home based online voting, those opportunities would be lost.

Also, it's one of the only times I get to encounter some neighbours that I don't usually bump into.

IMO the present system has more advantages for the times we are in.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...061212b-eng.htm

There would have to be a system in place to accommodate voters who don't have a computer at home. As indicated by the stats, those are in the lower income bracket.

There's also the fact that the present system provides temporary employment at the polls for people who need the extra cash. With home based online voting, those opportunities would be lost.

Also, it's one of the only times I get to encounter some neighbours that I don't usually bump into.

IMO the present system has more advantages for the times we are in.

Well ..as long as the poor are under represented....

[capricorn]

Wait...I've changed my mind. You're right Dancer. Online voting is the route to vote in favour of a Conservative budget with a tax cut for the middle class. Let's hurry it up, before the downtrodden acquire a computer.

[Riverwind]

There would have to be a system in place to accommodate voters who don't have a computer at home. As indicated by the stats, those are in the lower income bracket.

They don't only need a computer: they need an internet connection which costs at least $10/month. Of course they could always go to their local library but if they can do that they can go to polling booth. Edited January 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[tomcat]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...061212b-eng.htm

There would have to be a system in place to accommodate voters who don't have a computer at home. As indicated by the stats, those are in the lower income bracket.

There's also the fact that the present system provides temporary employment at the polls for people who need the extra cash. With home based online voting, those opportunities would be lost.

Also, it's one of the only times I get to encounter some neighbours that I don't usually bump into.

IMO the present system has more advantages for the times we are in.

Online voting should actually be referred to as electronic voting, because it also includes cell phones or regular land line phones would also be able to be used to vote with. Also the walk in polling would not disappear. Online voting would just be another method of voting added to the regular method.

[eyeball]

Online voting should actually be referred to as electronic voting, because it also includes cell phones or regular land line phones would also be able to be used to vote with. Also the walk in polling would not disappear. Online voting would just be another method of voting added to the regular method.

Exactly. Even you folks who vote with smoke signals or still use horses and buggies to get to a polling booth should be accomodated. We had a guy roll up in his Segway in the last election where I live, so there you go.

Its probably too much to hope the Luddites will ever keep their fear of voting or electronic widgets to themselves though, I expect they'll also do everything they can to keep democracy in its proper place which is mostly out of sight and out of mind and the farther away and slower it works the better.

[Riverwind]

Its probably too much to hope the Luddites will ever keep their fear of voting or electronic widgets to themselves though, I expect they'll also do everything they can to keep democracy in its proper place which is mostly out of sight and out of mind and the farther away and slower it works the better.

You are arguing a strawman. Myself and others have made it clear that we object to the notion of electronic voting because voting is a duty of citizenship and people that cannot be bothered to vote today without electronic voting demonstrate that they don't care that much about it and those of who do vote should not care about making it more convienient for them to vote. Given that context there is no justification for electronic voting given the numerous disadvantages. Edited January 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

You are arguing a strawman. Myself and others have made it clear that we object to the notion of electronic voting because voting is a duty of citizenship and people that cannot be bothered to vote today without electronic voting demonstrate that they don't care that much about it and those of who do vote should not care about making it more convienient for them to vote. Given that context there is no justification for electronic voting given the numerous disadvantages.

You almost make it sound like its our duty to not care. I happen to think voting is a duty too but in the same way paying taxes is a duty. A real duty as opposed to a rhetorical one. I think your sentiment should be completely turned around and we should make it inconvienient for people not to vote. Not impossible just inconvienient.

It goes without saying of course that those of us who do want to vote should also try to make it more convienient for us to vote as often and on as many issues as we can. Why would you want to argue against that?

Edited January 23, 2009 by eyeball

[Molly]

My objection- the only one- is that without verifiable hard copy, and a readily 'can't be tinkered with' system, elections will not have clear results, conceded by all as being correct.

Whole governments can be changed on the merit of a vote or two per poll. Feel free to call me Luddite, but it's still too important to be trusted whole to unwitnessable, unverifiable ether.

[CAMP]

My objection- the only one- is that without verifiable hard copy, and a readily 'can't be tinkered with' system, elections will not have clear results, conceded by all as being correct.

Whole governments can be changed on the merit of a vote or two per poll. Feel free to call me Luddite, but it's still too important to be trusted whole to unwitnessable, unverifiable ether.

But if you think about it Molly when you do the walk in vote, you are still able to be scammed out of your vote. Whole boxes have been lost on previous elections. It is easy to cause issues with the main system now. Did you know that the people who run the polling stations are recommended by the incumbent who won the previous election in that area. I'm not saying anything about polling people who are above board, but anyone who chooses to can cause issues by getting into key areas and manipulate the situation to their advantage.

Someone has to decide if a ballot is spoiled.

Also with the online voting I wouldn't want a hard copy to keep. Just one more piece of paper that is confidential and able to be lost or stolen.

The important thing to remember about this topic is what you gain in achieving online voting. A 30% increase in voter turn out! This will help our democratic situation greatly. Anyone who argues that laziness or somehow these extra 30% are uneducated and likely to vote unwisely are just unfounded assumptions.

[Molly]

Nothing operates perfectly... but a box lost is at least known to be lost, along with a pretty comprehensive list of the voters whose ballots were in that box. The same cannot be said for electronic voting.

And yes, I do know how poll workers are hired-- and the witnessing rights of candidates agents as well. No matter how hard a dishonest poll worker might try to manipulate an outcome, they can't plan on going unobserved, nor can they ever hope to have any impact on any but the few ballots in the very box they are charged with tending. I've done all the jobs-- DRO, clerk, candidates agent-- not an easy system to screw, and all but impossible to screw in a meaningful way.

The spoiled ballot issue is only an issue if there is a systematic effort to manipulate outcome. That's harder to organize than a power outage, or a virus... and has the fail-safe of recount and review, if those doubted ballots are meaningful to the outcome.

And just 'twixt you and me, I don't see an increase in the number of votes cast to be a major plus, unless accompanied by equivalent commitment to the process, and the outcome. Seriously, no one knows the value of a vote better than the individual making (or not) the effort to cast it. 30% more votes, if they are all of the tic-tac-toe variety, really aren't worth seeking out. We're better off having the decisions made by folks who care enough to put themselves out a little.

[CAMP]

Nothing operates perfectly... but a box lost is at least known to be lost, along with a pretty comprehensive list of the voters whose ballots were in that box. The same cannot be said for electronic voting.

And yes, I do know how poll workers are hired-- and the witnessing rights of candidates agents as well. No matter how hard a dishonest poll worker might try to manipulate an outcome, they can't plan on going unobserved, nor can they ever hope to have any impact on any but the few ballots in the very box they are charged with tending. I've done all the jobs-- DRO, clerk, candidates agent-- not an easy system to screw, and all but impossible to screw in a meaningful way.

The spoiled ballot issue is only an issue if there is a systematic effort to manipulate outcome. That's harder to organize than a power outage, or a virus... and has the fail-safe of recount and review, if those doubted ballots are meaningful to the outcome.

And just 'twixt you and me, I don't see an increase in the number of votes cast to be a major plus, unless accompanied by equivalent commitment to the process, and the outcome. Seriously, no one knows the value of a vote better than the individual making (or not) the effort to cast it. 30% more votes, if they are all of the tic-tac-toe variety, really aren't worth seeking out. We're better off having the decisions made by folks who care enough to put themselves out a little.

But Molly your assuming that the 40% who don't vote now are incapable of making a wise decision. That's simply an assumption on your part. Most of these non voters are just fed up with the system and don't want to bother with it anymore. Democracy is the will of the majority of the people. You don't have that now and your slipping fast into what I would say is a 4 year dictatorship system (assuming a majority gov't). When as low as 30% of the vote can turn into a majority government that doesn't say much for our so called democracy. And now what you have is 3 or 4 major parties all trying to capture that 30%. No one can trust any group of politicians any more. Partisan politics has increased. Even lower voter turnout, a frozen government that will have trouble coping with issues.

So some how it is your saying that unless you can walk to a polling booth your vote is just not worth casting.

I say that is a prejudicial thinking

[Molly]

Don't get fast and loose with MY assumptions.

1. In order to stand, a balloting system must both be fair, and be demonstrably fair under intense scrutiny. Electronic systems do not yet accomplish that. (Get back to me when and if they ever do.)

2. I'm all for making voting as uncomplicated as possible, but not, not, not ever at the cost of #1.

3. I'm assuming that 40% have made the (wise) decision that their vote is better left uncast. I trust their judgement on that completely. Abstention is a perfectly valid act.

[Jules_Jewels317]

e-democracy

I think the vast majority of opinion expressed in favour of maintaining the status quo has a lot more to do with the fear that increasing voter turnout will not favour conservative parties.

The proof of this pudding are that most of the same individuals who are against expanding democracy with technology also get chest-pains and diarreah at the prospect of mandatory voting to increase turnout. That's the real bug they've got up their butts, increasing voter turnout.

lol...that is so true. You said it so well too.

[Jules_Jewels317]

A few points. First of all, I'm not against e-voting per se, but as someone with some knowledge of the Internet, making it secure is very difficult. Even such supposedly high-security portals as banking and credit card sites aren't always as secure as we would like to think. The problems with voting machines in the States should make us approach this cautiously.

I think it's interesting that pretty much everyone of you who is against online voting thinks that you are an expert on internet security. I'm not saying that all of you are not, just the majority. Where do you get your information...the news? You can't believe everything you see on tv in the news or read in the newspapers. They are biased toward whoever owns them.

[Jules_Jewels317]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/0...061212b-eng.htm

There would have to be a system in place to accommodate voters who don't have a computer at home. As indicated by the stats, those are in the lower income bracket.

There's also the fact that the present system provides temporary employment at the polls for people who need the extra cash. With home based online voting, those opportunities would be lost.

Just because you don't have a computer at home doesn't mean you couldn't vote. There are libraries and internet cafe's that have public computer access that are available to people without computers. Chances are, they also know someone who has a computer in their home that they could use for a couple of minutes.

And the people you see working at the polling stations are VOLUNTEER'S who DO NOT GET PAID to be there. The people who are working there that are not retired are taking time off of work and losing money to be there.

[CAMP]

Don't get fast and loose with MY assumptions.

1. In order to stand, a balloting system must both be fair, and be demonstrably fair under intense scrutiny. Electronic systems do not yet accomplish that. (Get back to me when and if they ever do.)

2. I'm all for making voting as uncomplicated as possible, but not, not, not ever at the cost of #1.

3. I'm assuming that 40% have made the (wise) decision that their vote is better left uncast. I trust their judgement on that completely. Abstention is a perfectly valid act.

Hi Molly,

1. Well there is no reason why online voting can't be considered safe. Online banking is done every day. In fact even if you walk into your bank or use a banking machine the whole banking system is online everyday all day long. So security is not an issue that they have a problem with transacting billions of dollars. Some how you seem to think someone can hi jack an online voting system. This is simply not true.

The system software would incorporate checks that only allow one vote per person. No one is going to be able to place a 50,000 vote input or something silly like that. At worst it's basically the same... someone could if devious enough figure out a way to perhaps vote twice or steal someone's pin and figure out a personal question to be able to vote more than once, but that's about it.

A computer system and it's software can be implemented that would be able to be scrutinized by human watchdogs. the internet is able to be tracked much tighter than you realize perhaps. Anyone can be traced right down to their exact location if necessary.

2. Electronic voting either by phone or computer would only enhance the walk in regular everyday way. There is no intention of eliminating one for the other.

3. Abstention is a valid act if done with thought or wisely. But it is obvious that 40 % of our population is not really doing this wisely. They don't vote for a wide variety of reasons. Electronic voting would address any of those reasons about time issues, getting there issues etc.

4. It is proven that electronic voting does increase voter turn out. There is no disputing this fact.

5. Therefore people would vote. If it's as you say they are just bingo voters and the votes would be spread all over, (which I highly doubt) at least it would plant the seeds of thought for paying attention to the news and their political surroundings more throughout the political term, and cause even more wise voting.

6. Democracy in Canada is declining. The only way to fix it is to get more people involved. Electronic voting is one sure way to do this.