Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[Jules_Jewels317]

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.

Disadvantages? The only disadvantages any of you can come up with is the danger's of the internet. It's not secure, don't use it...run as fast as you can in the other direction. Yeah, ok get with the times. If you want to keep Canada in the stone ages of democracy and hide behind your fear of technology and your own laziness, then you go right ahead.

Electronic voting is going to be implemented whether you like it or not. So go ahead and kick and scream all you want. The benefits to electronic voting outweigh all your fears.

[Jules_Jewels317]

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?

I agree with you completely. Someone mentioned a website in an earlier post for a new political party who is all about getting us to vote often on all the issues that are important to Canada. I checked out their website and they will be getting my vote from now on. I think that they have a good chance at changing democracy as we know it now into how it was originally designed to function.

Here is the website address so you don't have to look back through all the posts if you want to check it out. www.canadian-alternative.com

[Jules_Jewels317]

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.

You are right abstention is a perfectly valid act, however you cannot just assume that everyone who does not vote is not voting for that reason. That's crazy. I have a lot of friends who have not voted in the last 2 federal elections because they were out of the country attending university and college. They would not send them mail in ballots either because they were living out of the country, even though it was temporary and voter cards had been sent to their address in Canada. If online voting was an option to them, then all they would need is there PIN number or whatever method of identification would be necessary and then they could vote.

[capricorn]

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.

Some people are volunteers and some people get paid to work at polling stations.

Each person gets $35 for coming to this two-hour training session on the Sunday afternoon of Thanksgiving weekend, so long as they show up for the real work on election day.

Elections Canada had difficulty recruiting a full team of people to manage the polls, particularly in Edmonton Centre and Calgary Centre.

---

This year, Elections Canada opened the doors to hiring 16- and 17-year-olds, but Starko saw few teen applicants to work the 12- to 14-hour shift from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. when the polls close and the counting begins.

Working the vote Tuesday means taking home about $10 an hour if you're answering questions at the door of a polling station, and about $16 an hour if you're supervising the polls.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...e0-c80c93441f73

[Molly]

That's priceless, Camp!

First you accuse ME of disregarding the (non)voters opinion as being unconsidered and worthless, then counterclaim that YOU would disregard their abstention as unconsidered and worthless! Make up your mind! Either they are competent decision makers, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

And yes, I use electronic banking... BUT I CHECK MY BALANCE REGULARLY. (And yes, I have caught screw-ups. About a month ago they magically lost a term deposit. I'm happy to report that I had a paper record of it.)

I posted a link to a fairly lengthy article on electronic voting in the US-- on-site voting, without the addition complication of internet and distribution of pin numbers. You should still read it. It's not a diatribe.

One of the things noted within it is that even if a system IS secure and accurate (an open question), it still must APPEAR to be secure and accurate to (nearly) all, or it misses the mark. If folks aren't convinced by the security/accuracy, then they aren't convinced of the result-- and under such circumstances of electoral doubt governance is seriously compromised. (Just check out the knee-jerk response to the coalition to see how folks respond to what they percieve as illegitimate governance.)

[ToadBrother]

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.

I was a system administrator for a small ISP for a decade, with at least a modest knowledge of the various protocols in use, so I don't think I'm just some guy watching the Fifth Estate and going "Holy cow!"

Care to try again, this time dealing with what I said, rather than with trying to make me look like some ignorant rube?

[Riverwind]

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.

You have just undermined your entire justification for online voting. If they can go to the library or cafe they can go to a polling booth.

You also forget that no matter what safety checks are put in place electronic voting cannot possibly provide the legitimacy of a paper ballot because paper ballots can be independently verified after the fact. The recent election for the Minnesota senator is an excellent example - every paper ballot was examined via an open process and this gives people confidence in the results. If Minnesota had electronic voting the results would always be in question because they could not be independently verified using a process that the average citizen can understand. This is why electronic voting always undermines the legimacy of the electoral process.

This is a very big problem and is frankly more important than catering to whims of people who are too lazy to go to a polling booth.

[eyeball]

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.

So what you're saying is we should not implement e-voting until everyone is 100% certain the system is foolproof - if even so much as 1 vote is misplaced the entire concept should be dismissed out of hand?

Its interesting you see this same demand for extremely high standards of certainty before any policies on climate change be implemented. 90% or more certainty about the need for policies is nowhere near high enough for some people and governments, I notice a few AGW doubters are also very vocal about not expanding democracy. OTOH we see many examples of policies being maintained or implemented amongst widespread doubt and uncertainty about their wisdom or desirability, the war on drugs and free-trade are good examples.

Is there or should there be some minimum or maximum standard for certainty or uncertainty before a public policy is implemented or prevented from being implemented or changed in some way? If so there are all sorts of public policies I too would like to see scrapped or not be implemented until such time as 100% certainty about their efficacy can be achieved.

Before we do though, I think it would be appropriate to ask voters what they think the standard should be.

It seems to me that some people think we have quite enough democracy as it is and that anymore would be too much and a threat to our well being. I'm quite certain governments will happily seize upon this and preach the controversy. We've seen this sort of thing before.

Edited January 23, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

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.

Computer security is a big part of my job. I probably know more about the topic than you or any of the people pushing the plan. I could design a system myself that would be very secure yet I would not trust it to run our voting system. Edited January 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

Computer security is a big part of my job. I probably know more about the topic than you or any of the people pushing the plan. I could design a system myself that would be very secure yet I would not trust it to run our voting system.

There have been serious issues with voting machines that are not networked down in the States. Putting these things on the Internet raises the security stakes incredibly. Hardening such systems is not a simple matter of some sort of firewall. Even assuming that you could produce a near-impenetrable cryptographically secure system, there are issues of network failure, secure storage and long-term archival of electoral data (if a recount is necessary).

Down in the States there seems to be movement *away* from the more complicated voting machines (which are, by and large, simply Windows XP machines with some voting software), because of the difficulties. These machines aren't even networked, and there are serious problems.

I'm still not willing to simply handwave away security. There are serious concerns about many banking sites and the extent of their security. We've already seen fake SSL certificates which are sufficient to fool modern browsers, and I'm assuming that the e-vote guys are simply talking about a sort of voting system version of online banking. Once you have a fake certificate that could fool an average computer and browser (which seems to be the proposal here), our entire electoral system could fall victim to man-in-the-middle attacks.

I'm not against the idea of e-voting, but dismissing the serious concerns of those of us who do understand some of the issues as simply ignorance or fear-mongering is irresponsible. At the end of the day, no better voting system than the ballot has been found. Canada has some of the best-managed elections in the world, and to sacrifice this so that some unknown proportion of the apathetic, lazy and stupid can get a marginally easier shake at voting seems utter folly. I suggest the poster in question is the ignorant one.

It's not as if, for the vast majority of Canadians, heading to the polls means driving hours. I live about five miles out of town, with the nearest polling station about two or three miles away, and it's like a ten minute drive at most. Usually I just vote on my way to or from work. Voting in this country is not difficult.

[Molly]

I'll go you one further-- most of my voting has been done in one of the largest ridings in Canada- possibly THE biggest outside the north. Polls were a heck of a lot closer than the nearest library or internet cafe! (or high speed hookup for that matter) And not onerous.

There's the odd soul who doesn't get to vote because of circumstances outside their control-- like an emergency trip to an out-of-constituency hospital-- but the very vast majority of folks who don't vote simply choose not to.

[Wilber]

My job usually had me using advanced polls, sometimes I wouldn't even be around for them and would have to use one of the special polling stations set up weeks before which could be up to 30 KM away. For an able bodied mobile person, so what. If you want to vote get off your ass and do what it takes to get it done. For invalids and the elderly however, there maybe something to it. My father got his first computer for his 80th birthday, 11 years later he has one of the latest iMacs and is on it every day. It can be done. How about if you can qualify for a wheelchair sign to to put on a car mirror, you get to vote on line. For those who don't and still won't vote, they're just lazy slobs.

[ToadBrother]

My job usually had me using advanced polls, sometimes I wouldn't even be around for them and would have to use one of the special polling stations set up weeks before which could be up to 30 KM away. For an able bodied mobile person, so what. If you want to vote get off your ass and do what it takes to get it done. For invalids and the elderly however, there maybe something to it. My father got his first computer for his 80th birthday, 11 years later he has one of the latest iMacs and is on it every day. It can be done. How about if you can qualify for a wheelchair sign to to put on a car mirror, you get to vote on line. For those who don't and still won't vote, they're just lazy slobs.

In my riding, all the major political parties have volunteers who will pick people up and take them to the polls and then take them home. There's a service for handicapped people so they can partake as well. From what I can tell, and maybe it isn't true of all ridings, but certainly many, people bend over backwards to try to get people to the polls.

The only reason I can think of that e-voting would actually increase numbers is because the apathetic could go "Ah, what the f---" and click on a button. To put an entire electoral system at risk of fraud or failure just to get these kinds of people to cast a ballot is absurd. If they're so worthless that they can't make it to a poll, then I say "screw 'em".

[eyeball]

I'm still not willing to simply handwave away security. There are serious concerns about many banking sites and the extent of their security. We've already seen fake SSL certificates which are sufficient to fool modern browsers, and I'm assuming that the e-vote guys are simply talking about a sort of voting system version of online banking. Once you have a fake certificate that could fool an average computer and browser (which seems to be the proposal here), our entire electoral system could fall victim to man-in-the-middle attacks.

I'm not against the idea of e-voting, but dismissing the serious concerns of those of us who do understand some of the issues as simply ignorance or fear-mongering is irresponsible. At the end of the day, no better voting system than the ballot has been found. Canada has some of the best-managed elections in the world, and to sacrifice this so that some unknown proportion of the apathetic, lazy and stupid can get a marginally easier shake at voting seems utter folly. I suggest the poster in question is the ignorant one.

Do you use online banking? What about other e-voting skeptics?

It's not as if, for the vast majority of Canadians, heading to the polls means driving hours. I live about five miles out of town, with the nearest polling station about two or three miles away, and it's like a ten minute drive at most. Usually I just vote on my way to or from work. Voting in this country is not difficult.

No its not, and I see no reason why we couldn't still expand democracy to the extent that multiple issues could be voted on entirely with paper ballots at voting centers, post offices, manpower centers, by fax, snail-mail etc.

The issue of e-voting and increasing voter turnout aside for the moment, what about those of us who do want to vote, shouldn't we try to make it more convienient for us to vote as often and on as many issues as we can? We're hearing that voters who take the time to vote are responsible people who are also likely to take the time to become educated about the things they vote for. Doesn't it make sense that we should give these people greater responsibility and convienience and things to vote on then? It sounds like many people here are also arguing against that. If I thought otherwise it might be easier to convince me that Internet security is a real issue, which begs the question how many e-voting skeptics use on-line banking despite everything negative that's been said about e-security? Are you also counselling people to abandon online banking and stick to using paper only? If not, why? Are you seriously suggesting in real practical terms that your vote is more dear to you than your money?

[ToadBrother]

Do you use online banking? What about other e-voting skeptics?

Do try to keep up, here. I gave one technical possibility for fraud, and you won't touch it, because, quite frankly, you don't know a damned thing about it.

Banks guarantee that if funds are stolen due to their online services, they are responsible. What are you going to guarantee me, a new ballot?

No its not, and I see no reason why we couldn't still expand democracy to the extent that multiple issues could be voted on entirely with paper ballots at voting centers, post offices, manpower centers, by fax, snail-mail etc.

The issue of e-voting and increasing voter turnout aside for the moment, what about those of us who do want to vote, shouldn't we try to make it more convienient for us to vote as often and on as many issues as we can? We're hearing that voters who take the time to vote are responsible people who are also likely to take the time to become educated about the things they vote for. Doesn't it make sense that we should give these people greater responsibility and convienience and things to vote on then? It sounds like many people here are also arguing against that. If I thought otherwise it might be easier to convince me that Internet security is a real issue, which begs the question how many e-voting skeptics use on-line banking despite everything negative that's been said about e-security? Are you also counselling people to abandon online banking and stick to using paper only? If not, why? Are you seriously suggesting in real practical terms that your vote is more dear to you than your money?

I'm sorry, I didn't ask for tee-shirt slogans. This isn't a matter of skepticism, this is a matter of the fundamental insecurity of current IP networks. It can be overcome, but it is incredibly difficult, and the expense, to my mind, can't be justified simply to get the worthless bumbs who are too lazy to show up at an actual poll to bother casting a ballot.

You don't know a goddamned thing about Internet security, and with each idiotic post you make, you make that clearer.

[Riverwind]

If you want to vote get off your ass and do what it takes to get it done. For invalids and the elderly however, there maybe something to it. My father got his first computer for his 80th birthday, 11 years later he has one of the latest iMacs and is on it every day.

There a lot of people who are not mentally capable of voting (alzhimers, etc). E-voting would allow their care-givers to vote on their behalf. Forcing people to show up at the polls ensures that only those capable of understanding the process actually vote.

[Wild Bill]

I find this thread rather amusing!

First, CAMP and Eyeball imply that those who oppose their idea must be ignorant Luddites, who because they are not internet and network experts are not qualified to express their opinions.

Then they find out that Toadbrother and Riverwind ARE experts! Just experts that know more than they do and don't agree with them!

Now we are hearing "Ah, whaddyou know anyways! <grumble, grumble>"

I smell zealotry here!

[tomcat]

In my riding, all the major political parties have volunteers who will pick people up and take them to the polls and then take them home. There's a service for handicapped people so they can partake as well. From what I can tell, and maybe it isn't true of all ridings, but certainly many, people bend over backwards to try to get people to the polls.

The only reason I can think of that e-voting would actually increase numbers is because the apathetic could go "Ah, what the f---" and click on a button. To put an entire electoral system at risk of fraud or failure just to get these kinds of people to cast a ballot is absurd. If they're so worthless that they can't make it to a poll, then I say "screw 'em".

Your logic isn't quite right here.

There would still be the normal walk in voting. So nothing changes that way. You would still have all those so wisely(lol) thought out votes being cast. And if it's as you say ... what the f..... click then there would be random results that should more or less even out the result based on probability. So electronic voting would only enhance the methods of voting.

Your assumption of what the f.... is just that an unfounded assumption with no basis.

The less the voter turn out the more your so called democracy is at risk. What are you going to do as the present system of voter turnout declines further. Statistical data suggests it will.

We'd still be all driving horses and buggies because automobiles are too dangerous, too fast, unsafe etc. if we all thought so short.

And like anything we do have people killed everyday on the road because of that system.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be issues to deal with using electronic voting, but your never going to get wet unless you get in the pool.

Canada has always been a world leader when it comes to automation. We have the best telecommunications system in the world. We can also become a model of achievement and success and be the 1st country to bring wide usage online voting into reality.

[ToadBrother]

Well said. Like anything new there will always be opponents to change. They try and find every excuse and possible dream senerios of corruption. Paper ballot walk in voting has many ways it could be compromised also.

No one said there wasn't. But, at the very least, you have to show up and prove that you are you, and there's a paper trail, which, as it is seems to be turning out down in the States, is rather important.

There is a human factor that sorts out spoiled ballots, whole boxes known to be lost. etc.

I could sit here and dream up even more scenerios, but why.

Because when instituting major electoral overhauls, that's precisely what you do.

It's obvious that online voting will happen and in fact I can tell you it is well under way in provicial election circles.

I'm sure it will, and I'm sure, as is happening in the States, when initiatives are pushed with inadequate understanding of all the potential pitfalls, it will, within a decade, have to be largely abandoned or overhauled, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, not to mention raising serious questions about the legitimacy of elections.

The advantages are exactly as you speak, and I know of a party that is well under way in establishing registration to use online voting in a powerful way in the future.

Political parties can do as they please.

In the future you will see more Independent candidates and parties. Eventually proportional representation will prevail and partisan politicians will be history. Thank god.

In the future we may be able to build air-tight networks, but for now, that goal is questionable. I'm not even sure the Internet, per se, is ready for financial transactions on the level we're seeing, and it sure the hell ain't ready for the most precious of rights to be flung out there for the few lazy, apathetic assholes who might be slightly more likely to vote because we've risked the integrity of our electoral system so they don't have to get their worthless asses out of a chair.

Edited January 23, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Riverwind]

In the future we may be able to build air-tight networks, but for now, that goal is questionable.

The trouble is not the network technology but the humans. Any system actually has to be easy to use and that frequently requires that security objectives be compromised in order to pander to the lest attentitive/unsophisticated user who might use the system. The fact that any e-voting system would be used infrequently would make it more difficult to rely on the memory of user to ensure security as a result there would need to be an easy process that would allow someone to recover lost pins/passwords - a process that would either be open to fraud or so cumbersome that it defeats the purpose of e-voting.

The problem is a lot easier when it comes to online banking because people accept that they have a personal responsibility to ensure the security of the system. i.e. despite the banks guarantees the customer is out of luck if the bank finds that they have not taken adequate measures to protect their pin/passwords. A lot of people lost a lot of money when trojans running on their computers picked up their electronic stock account passwords and then used them to liquidate their portfoilos and purchase bogus stocks.

With e-voting people have zero incentive to protect their information because there are no consequences for "losing your vote" if you don't care about it.

[KeyStone]

I have been consulting with a Canadian firm called intellivote systems Inc. about the possibility of having online voting for a federal or other election. They apparently already have set up municipal elections down east with great success! The voter turn out was a minimum 30% higher than normal. When I chatted with their representative Dean (You can find them on the web and phone this guy yourself if your so inclined) he explained that it would be even easier to do federally because in a municipal election there is more than one candidate that needs to be chosen. He also explained it is secure and safe. Online voting via internet and phone voting is what they specialize in setting up. They are also in consultation with some provinces for provicial elections.

I believe this would be an improvement for sure for Canada and our federal elections, if electronic voting was put in place.

This along with proportional representation would create a much more democratic environment in Canada, which we sadly need.

There is a party that is forming now for independents to simplify their efforts in getting their name on the ballot.

Check out www.canadian-alternative.com[url/]

Fantastic. This will make it much easier for me to sell my vote.

All I will need to do is have the representative in my home, when I cast my ballot electronically.

Or I can just sell him the password and PIN necessary to register my vote.

This really is a great idea. Why should I give someone my vote, when I can sell it?

[Wilber]

There a lot of people who are not mentally capable of voting (alzhimers, etc). E-voting would allow their care-givers to vote on their behalf. Forcing people to show up at the polls ensures that only those capable of understanding the process actually vote.

Now I think you are treading on really dangerous ground, mental competency tests in order to vote. Denying the physically incapable the right to vote because you think there is a possibility the mentally incapable might be taken advantage of is a pretty scary proposition. I know that there are volunteers who will help get them to the polls but it is still a very difficult proposition for those with severe physical challenges, near impossible for some. It can take some pretty specialized equipment for some of them to travel anywhere which brings up the question of what do we do for them now. Anyone know because even if online voting was available there is no guarantee they would have internet access where they live.

[Riverwind]

Now I think you are treading on really dangerous ground, mental competency tests in order to vote.

You are completely misinterpreting my point.

There are people who are not compenent to vote. We measure compentency today by someone's ability to get to polling booth and understand the process enough to fill out a ballot correctly. People with severe cognative disabilities could never do that and we just accept that they lose their right to vote. I never said that they should be denied to right to try - but if they can't understand the ballot there is really no point.

These same people could not vote online either so online voting won't help them.

But online voting would allow their caregivers to vote on their behalf and I suspect many would presume that they have a right do so and not see anything wrong with it. However, accepting that kind of behavoir would be a really slipperly slope which would open the door to abuse and ultimately undermine the credibility of the voting system.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[Jules_Jewels317]

I was a system administrator for a small ISP for a decade, with at least a modest knowledge of the various protocols in use, so I don't think I'm just some guy watching the Fifth Estate and going "Holy cow!"

Care to try again, this time dealing with what I said, rather than with trying to make me look like some ignorant rube?

And if you actually read what I said correctly then you would have seen that I said that the majority of the people on here think that they are experts, I'm not saying that all of them are not.

Did you read it right this time. I never said all of the people posting were not.

[Jules_Jewels317]

You have just undermined your entire justification for online voting. If they can go to the library or cafe they can go to a polling booth.

You also forget that no matter what safety checks are put in place electronic voting cannot possibly provide the legitimacy of a paper ballot because paper ballots can be independently verified after the fact. The recent election for the Minnesota senator is an excellent example - every paper ballot was examined via an open process and this gives people confidence in the results. If Minnesota had electronic voting the results would always be in question because they could not be independently verified using a process that the average citizen can understand. This is why electronic voting always undermines the legimacy of the electoral process.

This is a very big problem and is frankly more important than catering to whims of people who are too lazy to go to a polling booth.

It's only been undermined in your eyes, not mine. If I had to drive to my neighbours house to vote instead of mine, then it would still be a lot faster for me than driving to a polling station.