Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

Jules_Jewels317 · January 24, 2009

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.

So what you're saying is that Intelivote Systems Inc. is stupid for even attempting to set up electronic voting because you say so. News flash buddy, but just because that is your opinion does not mean that they haven't had success with their system at the municipal level. Yes it may have it's flaws, as does the paper system we have now, but at least they are being addressed. No one said it would be the perfect system, which is what you are implying.

And for your information, voting in this country is not always easy. With the system we have now there are errors, and some people are not able to vote because if it, even when they try. If you had read my earlier post, you might have understood this.

Jules_Jewels317 · January 24, 2009

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".

And you are probably at least mid-thirties or older and are scared of technology as are most people your age, even though you claim to work with it. You have to remember that younger generations are not so scared of technology as you seem to be. So maybe we should say "screw you" because you are so stuck in the mud.

Jules_Jewels317 · January 24, 2009

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?

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.

You can't tell people that they don't know what they're talking about. How do you know that eyeball is not into computer programming, or maybe even has more knowledge on the subject than you do. The answer is, you don't unless you've asked him. So again you are making unfounded assumptions.

eyeball · January 24, 2009

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?

You're right I don't know a damned thing about Internet security other than I rely on it and so do billions of other humans every day, that suggests its probably good enough to rely on for voting but apparently its not. So..., and speaking of keeping up, if you'll look a little more carefully you might notice I put e-voting aside for the moment and focused on increasing voter turnout while still exploring the promise that e-voting has for democracy for people who do want to vote more often and directly.

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.

Now we're getting somewhere. An expert and skeptic who says it can still be done. So now lets settle down and think about how expensive it would actually be. Lets now forget about voter turnout and put the issue of the lazy bums aside who don't care to vote (am I going too fast for you?). I happen to value my vote enough that I'd be willing to pay for the convienience of using it more often. Not an exorbitant amount but I'd be willing to pay, say $100 a year, to register and pay for the paper and scrutineers and voting centers and so on. I'd much rather do that than donate money to a political party myself.

If we're going to whine and cry and make excuses about how democracy is too expensive we should at least know just how high that cost would be and explore ways to finance it. I suppose now you'll leap to the defence of the poor lazy bums and make excuses about how undemocratic anything anyone suggests about expanding democracy is.

tomcat · January 24, 2009

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?

Silly very silly, and you really thing your going to get alot for one vote... lol.

tomcat · January 24, 2009

You're right I don't know a damned thing about Internet security other than I rely on it and so do billions of other humans every day, that suggests its probably good enough to rely on for voting but apparently its not. So..., and speaking of keeping up, if you'll look a little more carefully you might notice I put e-voting aside for the moment and focused on increasing voter turnout while still exploring the promise that e-voting has for democracy for people who do want to vote more often and directly.
Now we're getting somewhere. An expert and skeptic who says it can still be done. So now lets settle down and think about how expensive it would actually be. Lets now forget about voter turnout and put the issue of the lazy bums aside who don't care to vote (am I going too fast for you?). I happen to value my vote enough that I'd be willing to pay for the convienience of using it more often. Not an exorbitant amount but I'd be willing to pay, say $100 a year, to register and pay for the paper and scrutineers and voting centers and so on. I'd much rather do that than donate money to a political party myself.

If we're going to whine and cry and make excuses about how democracy is too expensive we should at least know just how high that cost would be and explore ways to finance it. I suppose now you'll leap to the defence of the poor lazy bums and make excuses about how undemocratic anything anyone suggests about expanding democracy is.

Actually I would love to hear any idea that would cause voter turn out to increase. My ears are WIDE open... carry on ... give me some good ideas.

Molly · January 24, 2009

LOL

A dollar and 95 cents anyway...

It's actually a darned good point... that votes would be instantly, easily saleable commodities. I was about to ask what 'one vote' was worth to the Conservative party in light of the Cadman affair-- but I really don't mean that in the partisan sense. One vote, give or take, can be huge. Saskatchewan, while they were in the throes of the worst urban/rural split, resulting in tiny majorities (and a coalition government) also ran smack into a dead tie in one riding. The Returning Officer cast a deciding vote, but that notion was over-ruled, and a re-vote was held (with a reverse result). One riding, one representative... it's not a thing to be dismissed as irrelevant, because that one can be the key to the whole show.

eyeball · January 24, 2009

Actually I would love to hear any idea that would cause voter turn out to increase. My ears are WIDE open... carry on ... give me some good ideas.

I think mandatory voting is probably the fastest and easiest way but the incrementalists seem to be convinced this would be undemocratic. Its bizarre.

Molly · January 24, 2009

I've got no great objection to it, but figure it's likely a waste of time, because 'interest' and 'thought' can't be made mandatory to go with it... and in the end, that's what we really want-- for folks to value, and properly exercize their opportunity to choose.

I'd like to see some serious mandatory civics classes, so more actually understand how it works, and something of its importance....

Wilber · January 24, 2009

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.

I think denying a citizen's access to a ballot is undermining democracy under any circumstances. Yes it might be abused in some cases but it's like saying it is OK to put the odd innocent person in jail because we might miss the odd guilty one. As long as you could prevent widespread fraud, some abuse would be acceptable in order to guarantee every citizen the opportunity to cast a ballot. I agree that it would be possible for people to sell their password and pin so I am not in favour of it being used on a universal level but I think there is a place for it.

It could be argued that many who do vote are not competent. Do we test people on knowledge of the issues before we allow them to vote? Where do you draw the line? I was also referring to people with severe physical disabilities, should they be denied the right to vote as well? What about a genius with ALS like Steven Hawking, should he be denied the right to vote because he couldn't get himself to a polling station? That's why I asked the question if anyone knew what we do now for people with extreme mobility problems who might require very specialized equipment to access a poling station. Does Elections Canada send someone to them with a ballot?It could be a godsend for them and wouldn't be a bad idea for our military serving overseas as well.

Molly · January 24, 2009

There are mail-in ballots, advance polls, polling stations set up in hospitals and long-term care facilities...

Polling staions are supposed to only be set up in accessible sites, there are braille templates, and several options for aid for for folks who need hands-on assistance... (I've even heard of the whole poll hardware and manpower packing up to go to the parking lot outside, so that someone who couldn't leave a vehicle could vote.)

It probably doesn't manage to accommodate absolutely everyone, but it's a heck of a good try.

tomcat · January 24, 2009

I've got no great objection to it, but figure it's likely a waste of time, because 'interest' and 'thought' can't be made mandatory to go with it... and in the end, that's what we really want-- for folks to value, and properly exercize their opportunity to choose.
I'd like to see some serious mandatory civics classes, so more actually understand how it works, and something of its importance....

Now there is something I whole heartedly agree with you on there Molly. I think there should be mandatory educational classes in our high schools so when our kids turn 18 they are knowledgeable about voting. Also there should be a place for new Canadians and anyone who has never had any real education on our system to go to to learn, such as a community college for adults etc.

That is a CAMP ideal for sure.

noahbody · January 24, 2009

Do we really need to give 30% more taxpayer dollars to political parties for the sake of those who really don't care enough to vote in the first place?

Mr.Canada · January 24, 2009

Do we really need to give 30% more taxpayer dollars to political parties for the sake of those who really don't care enough to vote in the first place?

Agreed, if they cannot be bothered enough to get out and vote or mail in vote it's doubtful they stay informed to make a proper choice. They can stay home.

eyeball · January 24, 2009

I've got no great objection to it, but figure it's likely a waste of time, because 'interest' and 'thought' can't be made mandatory to go with it... and in the end, that's what we really want-- for folks to value, and properly exercize their opportunity to choose.

You could be right about it being a waste of time. I think the best way to increase voter participation is to give voters more opportunity to vote. The arguments against doing this make little sense to me. They seem to be based on the notion that giving people more say will actually result in them saying less.

I'd like to see some serious mandatory civics classes, so more actually understand how it works, and something of its importance....

I wouldn't want to see this if it was just an excersize in reinforcing how wonderful it is just as it is. If these classes were mandatory I'd have to insist on being given the chance to compare our system with others to see if our's could be made to work better and I think that is what we should all want in the end. If not I'd have to seriously question people's intelligence not to mention their motives.

I'd like to know how it is that we can put so much faith in the wisdom of letting people have just about as much choice as they can possibly have in our economy but not in our democracy. We trust ourselves on the one hand but not on the other. That really strikes me as being very strange and very counterintuitive given how both are so intinsically inter-twined and inter-dependant.

eyeball · January 24, 2009

Do we really need to give 30% more taxpayer dollars to political parties for the sake of those who really don't care enough to vote in the first place?

How about giving people who do care a lot about voting 30% more taxpayer dollars for the convienience and opportunities to do so?

Wilber · January 24, 2009

There are mail-in ballots, advance polls, polling stations set up in hospitals and long-term care facilities...
Polling staions are supposed to only be set up in accessible sites, there are braille templates, and several options for aid for for folks who need hands-on assistance... (I've even heard of the whole poll hardware and manpower packing up to go to the parking lot outside, so that someone who couldn't leave a vehicle could vote.)

It probably doesn't manage to accommodate absolutely everyone, but it's a heck of a good try.

Thanks, seems to me that an online option could make things simpler in a lot of those situations but it couldn't replace all of them.

tomcat · January 24, 2009

Do we really need to give 30% more taxpayer dollars to political parties for the sake of those who really don't care enough to vote in the first place?

Do we really need to give any money to any party for the sake of those who do vote? And yes we do need to pay more dollars to who ever gets the votes. That's just the system as it is. The idea here is to increase the voter turn out. Why? Because it is necessary to strengthen the democratic process. This is the beginning of change for Canada and it's political process. Have you noticed the number of political parties and Independents that are starting up. We now have the Green party which gathered a fair number of votes. So really at this point there are 4 parties nationally and 1 in Quebec that gather in a substantial number of votes. This waters down the democratic strength of a nation.

You will see more and more coalitions in the future and less and less majority governments. Partisan politics is killing Canada slowly but surely. Partisan politicians are unwilling to put aside their differences. Online voting is something they are deathly afraid of. Because along with it will come proportional representation in one form or another and the first past the post system will be gone.

The only way to clean up this political mess we are now in and will face constanly in the future is to change the system. We need more voter turn out. e voting is one powerful way. In fact I will go as far to say right now, the two main parties don't want to change anything. They realize it won't ever be possilbe for them to gain a majority government with as low as 30% of the vote ever again.

Riverwind · January 25, 2009

I think denying a citizen's access to a ballot is undermining democracy under any circumstances.

That is what is happening today and nobody has questioned it before. Voting is a mental act that must be carried out by the individual. If an individual needs some form of physical assistance at the polling booth then an electoral officer will assist them - not the care giver who might be tempted to substitute their own opinion for that of the voter. If they are not mentally capable of understanding the choices or expressing their opinion then no one else is entitled to decide what their vote should be. I feel that is the way it should be.

Here are a couple links on the policies in place now:

http://enablelink.org/include/article.php?...pid=&subid=

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

I think you will find that the current system goes to considerable lengths to accomodate the disabled.

I think you will also find that no where does it suggest a person in a coma should be entitled to have their caregivers vote for them.

One point to note:

A formal application served two purposes: it gave the person's consent to be added to the National Register of Electors if the elector had not yet registered (or to update the person's information if he or she was already registered), and it allowed election officers to issue a voting kit containing a ballot. An application by mail or by fax had to be accompanied by a photocopy of proof of identity and residence. Once the kit was issued, the appropriate officer would strike through the person's name on the voters list and mark it with an S, to indicate that the person could not vote again at a polling station.

If an electronic voting system had application requirements similar to the special ballot then I could live with it. The problem is those requirements are more onerous than going to a polling booth and would not likely increase the participation rate. What the electronic voting proponents want to do is gut the checks and balances in the current system - that is what I oppose and do not feel it can be justified in order to pander to a group of people who are perfectly capable of voting but choose not to.

It is worth noting that the introduction of electronic technologies has made many crimes/unethical acts more common because of the reduced barriers. Music/movie pirating and student paper pilagerization are two examples. The "convenience" factor has come with a huge cost that was not predicted in advance by anyone. For that reason it is naive to assume that convenient electronic voting will not lead to wide spread abuse. I am hardly a luddite but when it comes to electronic voting I feel that the benefits do not justify the risks.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Riverwind

eyeball · January 25, 2009

What the electronic voting proponents want to do is gut the checks and balances in the current system - that is what I oppose and do not feel it can be justified in order to pander to a group of people who are perfectly capable of voting but choose not to.

Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?

I am hardly a luddite but when it comes to voting I feel that benefits do not justify the risks.

Is that a Fruedian slip or what? :lol:

Riverwind · January 25, 2009

Where on Earth did you ever get that idea?

Really? So why would a system that requires an individual to mail a signed application form with copies of identification before each vote increase participation rate? Achieving the purported benefits would require that the information required to vote electronically be mailed automatically to the lazy sops who can't be bothered to go to a polling booth.

The point that people forget it is it not the the technology that makes electronic voting secure/insecure - it is the process. The proponents of electronic voting are not simply demanding that computer networks be used to submit votes - they are demanding that the checks and balances be dropped in order to make the process more convenient.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Riverwind

tomcat · January 25, 2009

That is what is happening today and nobody has questioned it before. Voting is a mental act that must be carried out by the individual. If an individual needs some form of physical assistance at the polling booth then an electoral officer will assist them - not the care giver who might be tempted to substitute their own opinion for that of the voter. If they are not mentally capable of understanding the choices or expressing their opinion then no one else is entitled to decide what their vote should be. I feel that is the way it should be.
Here are a couple links on the policies in place now:

http://enablelink.org/include/article.php?...pid=&subid=

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?sectio...;textonly=false

I think you will find that the current system goes to considerable lengths to accomodate the disabled.

I think you will also find that no where does it suggest a person in a coma should be entitled to have their caregivers vote for them.

One point to note:

If an electronic voting system had application requirements similar to the special ballot then I could live with it. The problem is those requirements are more onerous than going to a polling booth and would not likely increase the participation rate. What the electronic voting proponents want to do is gut the checks and balances in the current system - that is what I oppose and do not feel it can be justified in order to pander to a group of people who are perfectly capable of voting but choose not to.

It is worth noting that the introduction of electronic technologies has made many crimes/unethical acts more common because of the reduced barriers. Music/movie pirating and student paper pilagerization are two examples. The "convenience" factor has come with a huge cost that was not predicted in advance by anyone. For that reason it is naive to assume that convenient electronic voting will not lead to wide spread abuse. I am hardly a luddite but when it comes to electronic voting I feel that the benefits do not justify the risks.

Ah but wait a minute let's examine what your comparing here. Music/Movies were copied long before the internet was ever around.

And there are web sites set up to do just that. Your not going to see some kind of web site set up so you can some how vote more often.

Remember the system admin is in charge of who and who can't vote and it would be watched and verified on a constant ongoing basis.

If they enforced stiff penalties for the various things you speak of and actually went through with prosecution it would be pretty much history.

Unfortunately the internet is wide open and reaches past Canadian borders. But this would be a federal election with in the boundaries of Canada and law. Would be simple to make laws that would severly punish someone who would even try to compromise the system if they could, which I highly doubt.

Riverwind · January 25, 2009

Ah but wait a minute let's examine what your comparing here. Music/Movies were copied long before the internet was ever around.

Sure - but the losses to the companies and artists making the product were minimal. Digital technology has led to such wide spread pirating that the companies are incurring significant losses. The example, demonstrates why making things convenient can take loopholes that were not such a big deal and turn them into major problems.

Remember the system admin is in charge of who and who can't vote and it would be watched and verified on a constant ongoing basis.

You are missing the point. To be "convenient" the system would have to make it easy for people to get access to the system and to recover lost login/password information. A system that makes registration and password recovery convenient would be more open to fraud - perhaps catatrophically so. A system that makes these things inconvient won't change the behavoir of people who are too lazy to go to the polls today.

What this means is the proponents of electronic voting are either overselling it in terms of how many voters are likely to use it or they are want to make the system vulnerable to fraud.

Would be simple to make laws that would severly punish someone who would even try to compromise the system if they could, which I highly doubt.

It would be even simpler to stick with paper ballots. As I said before the: the security weaknesses of a computer system are mostly determined by the process used to decide which humans should be granted access. The technology used to electronically verify user credentials and ensure privacy is a secondary concern

To illustrate this: I just filled in an electronic application form for a new TFSA. The process was easy until the last step which required me to mail in a real check for the bank account used to transfer money. This was a major nuisance because I never use checks or mail anymore but the bank felt it was necessary to protect against fraud. If I change my linked bank account I will have to send something by mail again. If you want to use electronic banking as a reference for an electronic voting system then somesort of snail mail process must be included. If you include snail mail in the process then the people who are too lazy to vote at a polling booth are not going to use it.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Riverwind

gc1765 · January 25, 2009

There are some people who don't vote where laziness is not a factor at all, like myself in the last election. I tried to vote with my voter card and was not allowed. I live in a rural area and it takes me 20 minutes to get to the nearest polling station. I went the one indicated on my voter card (a 20 minute drive) and when I got there I was told I wasn't on their list of voters. I showed them my voter card and the person in charge of the polling station got on the phone with the higher-ups and found out that they had mis-printed the polling station I was to go to and that I was registered at another one and they gave me the location. So then, I had to drive to another polling station that was 20 minutes in the other direction from my house (so now it would take me 40 minutes to get there). When I got to the second polling station, the same thing happened, I was not on their list. So again, the person in charge called the higher-ups to find out what was going on. Same response a second time from them, I was at the wrong polling station and had to go to a different one. Another 45 minute drive from where I was. When I got to the 3rd polling station I was told the same thing again. Needless to say after driving for 1 hour and 45 minutes to 3 different polling stations, I did not vote. YOU CANNOT SAY THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR NOT VOTING IS LAZINESS!!!! That is not the case for everyone!

That's odd. I once went to the wrong polling station (because I had just moved and hadn't updated my ID) and they still let me vote "absentee".

I've also shown up to the polling booth without being registered and registered right there and then. Took about 2 minutes.

Molly · January 25, 2009

Well, being allowed to vote absentee might have been a tiny fudge of the rules but Jules was given a very inappropriate runaround- sounds like, by people who didn't know the options they had at their disposal, or what proper procedure should have been. No excuse for it.

Thing is, electronic voting wouldn't cure that. Make it far worse, in fact. The tiniest glitch- a typo, the use of an initial instead of a full name- the kind that is routinely sorted out at a polling station without it being an issue at all- would simply mean 'come back next election'. Our current registration system is currently VERY flexible and user-friendly.

It is probably a good thing that you bring it back up as Riverwind points out the choice between security and convenience with more detail.