Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[ToadBrother]

Online voting if utilized properly can shift the power from the top bosse(s) of a political party back to the people, which will improve democracy greatly.

So when you have a system that's actually secure, let us know.

[CAMP]

So when you have a system that's actually secure, let us know.

We do so you're now informed.

[ToadBrother]

We do so you're now informed.

I just heard a few days ago on this very thread that they use CAPTCHAs in one part of the system. That is not secure.

So where is the secure system, the unhackable system, the system not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks?

[CAMP]

I just heard a few days ago on this very thread that they use CAPTCHAs in one part of the system. That is not secure.

So where is the secure system, the unhackable system, the system not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks?

What you chose to hear is that online voting ONLY uses Captchas. I mentioned it was just one method of helping to secure online voting. There is a whole host of methods being used that build proper security. I also mentioned that security is always an ongoing issue to be dealt with and continue improving. Here is an article about security that is relevent to it.... http://www.canadian-alternative.com/Intern...urity_scare.pdf

[ToadBrother]

What you chose to hear is that online voting ONLY uses Captchas. I mentioned it was just one method of helping to secure online voting. There is a whole host of methods being used that build proper security. I also mentioned that security is always an ongoing issue to be dealt with and continue improving. Here is an article about security that is relevent to it.... http://www.canadian-alternative.com/Intern...urity_scare.pdf

I never said it only uses CAPTCHAs, my understanding is that they're something of a gatekeeper. But CAPTCHAs have been broken so many times that about the only people who use them any more is online forums. Banks certainly don't, and it suggests a great deal of ignorance of the nature of threats on the Internet.

My attitude is that if people are so stupid or lazy as to not bother going to a poll to cast a ballot, then I'm not sure I care whether they vote or not. I mean, wouldn't a better solution simply be to make it an offense not to vote, and fine people like they do in Australia?

[CAMP]

I never said it only uses CAPTCHAs, my understanding is that they're something of a gatekeeper. But CAPTCHAs have been broken so many times that about the only people who use them any more is online forums. Banks certainly don't, and it suggests a great deal of ignorance of the nature of threats on the Internet.

My attitude is that if people are so stupid or lazy as to not bother going to a poll to cast a ballot, then I'm not sure I care whether they vote or not. I mean, wouldn't a better solution simply be to make it an offense not to vote, and fine people like they do in Australia?

And so we must all run to our home riding to vote if there's a snap election. How inconvenient and short sighted.

What about handicapped people, university students away from home and our soldiers, they are not stupid or lazy. Did you know 32000 votes from overseas didn't manage to make the deadline of the last federal vote to be counted? E voting solves a lot of problems that non lazy people who do want to vote and aren't able to surely can. For those who want to go to their regular polling station and cast a paper ballot go ahead.

I'm not from down under and that sure sounds like a government out of control. I wouldn't vote just out of spite if that was passed here! The more laws that are made like that the closer you come to the slippery slope of being bound and gaged by your government.

There are so many advantages to Evoting it is unwise to not proceed with implementation of it.

It opens up so many doors to the improvement of our democracy and Canada and for that matter the world.

[ToadBrother]

And so we must all run to our home riding to vote if there's a snap election.

Snap election? Election's are a month long. And I'd be even more nervous if any ol' IP address were permitted to be a source of a vote.

How inconvenient and short sighted.

What about handicapped people, university students away from home and our soldiers, they are not stupid or lazy.

Soldiers take part in advanced polls, in my riding at least the handicapped are given rides (in fact parties practically fall over each other to do this sort of thing). As to university students, surely they can used advanced polls as well?

Did you know 32000 votes from overseas didn't manage to make the deadline of the last federal vote to be counted? E voting solves a lot of problems that non lazy people who do want to vote and aren't able to surely can. For those who want to go to their regular polling station and cast a paper ballot go ahead.

Yes, because 32,000 votes would have made such a huge difference.

I'm not from down under and that sure sounds like a government out of control. I wouldn't vote just out of spite if that was passed here! The more laws that are made like that the closer you come to the slippery slope of being bound and gaged by your government.

There are so many advantages to Evoting it is unwise to not proceed with implementation of it.

It opens up so many doors to the improvement of our democracy and Canada and for that matter the world.

No, it just opens the door for massive electoral fraud.

[CAMP]

Snap election? Election's are a month long. And I'd be even more nervous if any ol' IP address were permitted to be a source of a vote.

Soldiers take part in advanced polls, in my riding at least the handicapped are given rides (in fact parties practically fall over each other to do this sort of thing). As to university students, surely they can used advanced polls as well?

Yes, because 32,000 votes would have made such a huge difference.

No, it just opens the door for massive electoral fraud.

32,000 votes is a big difference. EACH AND EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT!. This is the same problematic thinking that has gotten us to the state we are in now with low voter turn out.

So your willing to condem online voting with out any knowledge of how it would perform based on a whole lot of conjecture from various sources. Please read the article here... http://www.canadian-alternative.com/Intern...urity_scare.pdf

It's mainly a human error problem than the technology.

I'd like to see it tried out in say 10 selected ridings and see how it goes. Scrutinize it carefully and if all is good carry on to full implementation. I can't see you haveing a problem with that... after all it's only 40 or 50 thousand votes per riding... yikes!

[benny]

Well said benny, I think the UN should adopt and offer online voting as an independent monitor for 3rd world and oppressed countries, who's population are wanting to have a democratic election. Being able to offer this to a population of people who don't trust their government would be another very good way online voting could be utilized. This way the people would feel safe to vote if there is any danger from thugs or their own government. And a true result would be able to be made public. Just look at IRAN.

I believe the case of Iran is particularly interesting because it may show that if rulers want an educated population then they also have to deal with its capacity to detect election frauds. Maybe Iranian rulers are propping up higher education in the population to get the nuclear bomb but they may also well have to deal with their population insisting for democratic processes as high tech as the nuclear technology.

[ToadBrother]

I believe the case of Iran is particularly interesting because it may show that if rulers want an educated population then they also have to deal with its capacity to detect election frauds. Maybe Iranian rulers are propping up higher education in the population to get the nuclear bomb but they may also well have to deal with their population insisting for democratic processes as high tech as the nuclear technology.

I dunno. China has an increasingly educated population, and yet it seems to have pretty much nipped the democracy movement in the butt. Of course, China seems to have some people in positions of authority who have a pretty good idea of the economy, whereas Iran does not. I think that's in large part because China is no longer run by fanatical ideologues like Mao, while Iran still is.

The lesson seems to be that as long as an authoritarian regime can deliver better standards of living, people seem to be willing to put off democracy. If the regime cannot, then the people want to gain control. We in the West have long assumed that democratic liberties were the natural desire of our species, but, I think, we're being shown that the most critical liberties are economic.

[benny]

I dunno. China has an increasingly educated population, and yet it seems to have pretty much nipped the democracy movement in the butt. Of course, China seems to have some people in positions of authority who have a pretty good idea of the economy, whereas Iran does not. I think that's in large part because China is no longer run by fanatical ideologues like Mao, while Iran still is.

The lesson seems to be that as long as an authoritarian regime can deliver better standards of living, people seem to be willing to put off democracy. If the regime cannot, then the people want to gain control. We in the West have long assumed that democratic liberties were the natural desire of our species, but, I think, we're being shown that the most critical liberties are economic.

I have to disagree. The main difference in between Iran and China is that Iran (both the population and its leadership) is envious of the Western lifestyle and China (both the population and its leadership) feels superior to the Western world. The main reason why China can feel superior to Western liberal democracies is that they still believe that its communist revolution will defeat capitalism.

Edited July 6, 2009 by benny

[ToadBrother]

I have to disagree. The main difference in between Iran and China is that Iran (both the population and its leadership) is envious of the Western lifestyle and China (both the population and its leadership) feels superior to the Western world. The main reason why China can feel superior to Western liberal democracies is that they still believe that its communist revolution will defeat capitalism.

You're talking out of your posterior. China ceased to be a Communist state (finally, it had almost stopped being one before Mao sparked the Cultural Revolution) in the mid-1970s. No one in China seriously believes in the Communist Revolution anymore. And yes, the kids in China want a piece of the action, just like kids in Iran. The Chinese leadership, no longer ideologically chained to Maoism, still want to retain power, but know the best way to do that is to give the people the trappings of a free society with as little of the freedoms that are supposed to come along with it. In Iran, the leadership, still bound to ideology, is staring at a demographic wall that sooner or later knock it down.

[CAMP]

You're talking out of your posterior. China ceased to be a Communist state (finally, it had almost stopped being one before Mao sparked the Cultural Revolution) in the mid-1970s. No one in China seriously believes in the Communist Revolution anymore. And yes, the kids in China want a piece of the action, just like kids in Iran. The Chinese leadership, no longer ideologically chained to Maoism, still want to retain power, but know the best way to do that is to give the people the trappings of a free society with as little of the freedoms that are supposed to come along with it. In Iran, the leadership, still bound to ideology, is staring at a demographic wall that sooner or later knock it down.

Well I'd say at best China is still an oppressive state. Their human rights violations are fair proof of that.

They may in the future come totally out of their communist way but remember communism can crack down the population at any time just as they did in the Tienanmenn square.

Edited July 6, 2009 by CAMP

[ba1614]

I never said it only uses CAPTCHAs, my understanding is that they're something of a gatekeeper. But CAPTCHAs have been broken so many times that about the only people who use them any more is online forums. Banks certainly don't, and it suggests a great deal of ignorance of the nature of threats on the Internet.

My attitude is that if people are so stupid or lazy as to not bother going to a poll to cast a ballot, then I'm not sure I care whether they vote or not. I mean, wouldn't a better solution simply be to make it an offense not to vote, and fine people like they do in Australia?

Couldn't agree more TB

Edited July 6, 2009 by ba1614

[benny]

You're talking out of your posterior. China ceased to be a Communist state (finally, it had almost stopped being one before Mao sparked the Cultural Revolution) in the mid-1970s. No one in China seriously believes in the Communist Revolution anymore. And yes, the kids in China want a piece of the action, just like kids in Iran. The Chinese leadership, no longer ideologically chained to Maoism, still want to retain power, but know the best way to do that is to give the people the trappings of a free society with as little of the freedoms that are supposed to come along with it. In Iran, the leadership, still bound to ideology, is staring at a demographic wall that sooner or later knock it down.

The surest sign an ideology is still alive is a country's willingness to show a good self-image to others. At the Beijing Olympics we have seen such willingness on the part of China, something that is unthinkable on the part of Iran.

[CAMP]

Couldn't agree more TB

So we should just put up with the inconvience of walk in polling, and have a half ass system for our soldiers and people out of country or riding area. Meanwhile we do our banking online and fill up our Timmies cards but have such limited thinking about opening up a secure online voting system. Proof of security is the fact that there is online banking. Surely if the banks can do it so can the government.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

So we should just put up with the inconvience of walk in polling, and have a half ass system for our soldiers and people out of country or riding area. Meanwhile we do our banking online and fill up our Timmies cards but have such limited thinking about opening up a secure online voting system. Proof of security is the fact that there is online banking. Surely if the banks can do it so can the government.

It can be done without much trouble at all, or expense for that matter. It could be setup to work on landlines, cellphones or on the internet, the medium is of little consequence. The reality is that power would be transfered from governments to the people, and knowing that begs the question; will government ever support this proposition?

[CAMP]

It can be done without much trouble at all, or expense for that matter. It could be setup to work on landlines, cellphones or on the internet, the medium is of little consequence. The reality is that power would be transfered from governments to the people, and knowing that begs the question; will government ever support this proposition?

Our government which is really just a bunch of power hungry top down enforced parties would never go for it. Reliquishing power to the people is totally against their thoughts. Case in point. All governments elected now have the ability to hold a referendum on any issue they want to. Have they ever? To the best of my knowledge no? And why is this? Because the result would be binding on them and they would have to do the will of the people.

This is why a number of people (and growing) are building the party in my signature below. The only way to reform our democracy is to reform it by getting in the house and breaking through the present parties defenses who don't want to give up their hold.

[Dave_ON]

Our government which is really just a bunch of power hungry top down enforced parties would never go for it. Reliquishing power to the people is totally against their thoughts. Case in point. All governments elected now have the ability to hold a referendum on any issue they want to. Have they ever? To the best of my knowledge no? And why is this? Because the result would be binding on them and they would have to do the will of the people.

This is why a number of people (and growing) are building the party in my signature below. The only way to reform our democracy is to reform it by getting in the house and breaking through the present parties defenses who don't want to give up their hold.

Actually unless I'm very much mistaken I believe the Charlottetown accord had a referendum vote associated with it. This was non-binding as I recall. The government has it at their discretion to make both binding and non-binding referendums. I for one would hate the government to have regular referendums as they do in the states. I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I pay my MP to do the voting for me. If I wanted to vote for every single issue that went before parliament I'd run for office. As it stands I do not so I remain a constituent. You have a voice if you choose to use it, contact your MP you may do this at any time. Most choose not to avail themselves of such opportunities, and prefer to complain about how little power they have.

As for the online voting issue, I think it’s something that we should work towards. I don’t feel we’re ready to implement it in the immediate future but that does not mean we shouldn’t work toward it. An important point you left out of your post CAMP is that you may also submit your tax return via the web, an excellent service which I take advantage of. It’s much faster than mailing it and it is 100% secure. This is done via the Revenue Canada website. The security and controls on the site are excellent, and I don’t see how registering to vote would be any less secure. Those who oppose these types of advances are likely still filling out paper forms for their taxes and using an abacus to help them do the math.

[CAMP]

Actually unless I'm very much mistaken I believe the Charlottetown accord had a referendum vote associated with it. This was non-binding as I recall. The government has it at their discretion to make both binding and non-binding referendums. I for one would hate the government to have regular referendums as they do in the states. I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I pay my MP to do the voting for me. If I wanted to vote for every single issue that went before parliament I'd run for office. As it stands I do not so I remain a constituent. You have a voice if you choose to use it, contact your MP you may do this at any time. Most choose not to avail themselves of such opportunities, and prefer to complain about how little power they have.

As for the online voting issue, I think it’s something that we should work to-wards. I don’t feel we’re ready to implement it in the immediate future but that does not mean we shouldn't work toward it. An important point you left out of your post CAMP is that you may also submit your tax return via the web, an excellent service which I take advantage of. It’s much faster than mailing it and it is 100% secure. This is done via the Revenue Canada website. The security and controls on the site are excellent, and I don’t see how registering to vote would be any less secure. Those who oppose these types of advances are likely still filling out paper forms for their taxes and using an abacus to help them do the math.

I agree with you on the referendums. I do think they should be limited to issues like the GM bail out. I think entering the Afghan war would have been another. Not sure what would be considered a referendum issue but I'm sure some sort of guideline could be put in place to bring understand as to when to use them.

As calling your MP, I've been there done that and got no where except recorded on a message center with no return call. It could just be that some MP's are more responsible than others but mine is never around, only see him knocking on my door when there's an election.

The polling I'm talking about would be optional but would happen in between mandates. Those who trust their MP could just proxy their vote for the entire mandate. Those who would like input would be involved in both choosing issues of importance for our government to tackle and then proceed to be polled. MP's would know the polling results and enter the house knowing what their constituents would prefer. Also make public the MP's vote to create accountability.

This sort of system would require MP's to be responsible to their riding rather than their party boss or whip.

The online voting should be implemented methodically and always with care to secure it and maintain that security in an ongoing fashion.

[benny]

I'm not a fan of direct democracy. I pay my MP to do the voting for me.

The reality is the contrary: your MP makes you pay him dearly because you cannot imagine a better more direct democracy.

[ba1614]

CAMP- I checked out your website and you might want to get them to at least name the homepage,(the one people bookmark). If you are going to have a platform of computer voting with security and efficiency, you shouldn't look like a total amateur at the first click of the mouse!

[benny]

CAMP- I checked out your website and you might want to get them to at least name the homepage,(the one people bookmark). If you are going to have a platform of computer voting with security and efficiency, you shouldn't look like a total amateur at the first click of the mouse!

Before going after voters, a new party usually has to recruit volunteers to do that kind of things.

[Dave_ON]

The reality is the contrary: your MP makes you pay him dearly because you cannot imagine a better more direct democracy.

On the contrary simple is better. Look south of the boarder for all the complexities of their system and the "directness" of their democracy the Americans are no further ahead than the rest of the world. Our system works, and has done so for 142 years and counting. The average Joe doesn't have sufficient time to adequately research or understand all issues before the house. Our MP's have an entire staff that does this for them.

Don't fall into the trap that the Americans have by thinking that big and complex is better, it's not. Having a plethora of referendums and votes on issues waters down democracy rather than strengthening it. If people are voting all the time they will get to the point where they're tired of voting and aren't putting the amount of thought into it they should. Do the words "voter fatigue" mean anything to you?

[Molly]

There is no technology that will protect voters from interference at their own end of the link, and guarantee privacy _while_ they vote.

Benny brougt it up a good long while back. Even if you can solve the security issues, the list issues etc. etc. etc., if you can't prevent someones vote from being strongarmed at the moment they are marking their X, then you have a bad system.

If a computerized system can prevent an abuser from standing beside the computer while the members of his household are marched through to place their X where they are told to place it... then, and only then, will it be secure enough.