Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[benny]

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?

I'm quite sure that this new centrist party is dedicated to paying each hour people will put in political matters more than their hourly wage.

[Dave_ON]

I'm quite sure that this new centrist party is dedicated to paying each hour people will put in political matters more than their hourly wage.

Huh? Care to dedicate more than a vague, and very loosely cogent sentence to explain? I'm not quite following your point.

[Dave_ON]

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.

Hmm that's an excellent point and one I hadn't considered in its entirety. While I'm certain similar occurrences happen in our current system, they are significantly diminished by the highly regulated polling station method. Realistically the only way to reduce interference electronically would be to closely monitor it, which of course would negate the nature of the secret ballot.

[Molly]

The security of the secrecy of that X is the primary responsibility of the folks who work at the polls.

It's not to challenge potentially un-qualified people, but to secure the rights of everyone who appears to claim their vote.

I get the feeling that most of the folks who advocate electronic voting have never worked at a poll to see the process from that side.

[August1991]

I haven't read through this whole thread but I did flip though it quickly. From what I can gather, posters arestill debating the security angle. Can online voting be made safe? Can it be corrupted? IOW, posters entirely miss the point about democracy, voting systems, authoritarian states and civilized states.

Then I read this:

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.

CAMP, have you ever been in a country other than Canada? Do you know how other societies around the world operate? I suggest that you travel a bit, and ask a few questions.

There is so much more to a civilized society than a democratic vote. But as a first start, I think people showing up in public every few years and dipping their finger alone in permanent purple ink is a good start. I think Canadians should do this as well, to make the practice standard. At this level, democracy is symbolic and it is important that we observe the symbolism.

In a democracy, it is important to show that you have voted and for others to know that you voted. It's like driving a BMW or wearing the white earphones of an iPod. To work, democracy must be visible.

----

Now then CAMP, if you want to introduce "high tech" into democracy, I suggest that you start with the federal House of Commons where the Speaker still calls for "divisions" and MPs have to stand physically in teh House and say yes or no.

I think MPs should be able to vote at least by secure SMS. As a minimum, they could have a button at their desks.

IOW CAMP, take a look at how democractic representatives vote. The backwardness is appalling, and the symbolism now meaningless.

Edited July 6, 2009 by August1991

[benny]

Huh? Care to dedicate more than a vague, and very loosely cogent sentence to explain? I'm not quite following your point.

The only real, or at least the first, responsibility of a government is to prevent or win wars; opportunities to make money and have leisure time are to be thought strictly in relation to this.

Edited July 6, 2009 by benny

[CAMP]

I haven't read through this whole thread but I did flip though it quickly. From what I can gather, posters are still debating the security angle. Can online voting be made safe? Can it be corrupted? IOW, posters entirely miss the point about democracy, voting systems, authoritarian states and civilized states.

Then I read this:

CAMP, have you ever been in a country other than Canada? Do you know how other societies around the world operate? I suggest that you travel a bit, and ask a few questions.

There is so much more to a civilized society than a democratic vote. But as a first start, I think people showing up in public every few years and dipping their finger alone in permanent purple ink is a good start. I think Canadians should do this as well, to make the practice standard. At this level, democracy is symbolic and it is important that we observe the symbolism.

In a democracy, it is important to show that you have voted and for others to know that you voted. It's like driving a BMW or wearing the white earphones of an iPod. To work, democracy must be visible.

----

Now then CAMP, if you want to introduce "high tech" into democracy, I suggest that you start with the federal House of Commons where the Speaker still calls for "divisions" and MPs have to stand physically in the House and say yes or no.

I think MPs should be able to vote at least by secure SMS. As a minimum, they could have a button at their desks.

IOW CAMP, take a look at how Democratic representatives vote. The backwardness is appalling, and the symbolism now meaningless.

Well first off dipping one's finger in ink is pretty low tech but works in a 3rd world country. Maybe hand out a Canada flag that could be displayed or bumper stickers at the polling stations or you get one in the mail after you've voted online.

Besides Ink is probably toxic and with minority governments we only have 10 fingers... lol.

And yes I've been to Africa and other places installing solar systems in 3rd world countries.

I've been around.

You can high tech it all you want, the main reason I want online voting is to usher in the possibility of using it in between mandates to pursued our government via polls to tell our MP's our desires in a majority fashion.

And I want referendums on the big ticket items like bailing out GM or Afghanistan war. etc.

[Smallc]

We can already persuade our representatives using online polls...and polls that aren't done online. We can interact with the system at many turns. We can't be voting on everything that you consider to be important.

[August1991]

And yes I've been to Africa and other places installing solar systems in 3rd world countries.

I've been around.

I think that's great but you should ask direct questions of the person in front of you, and think clearly about the answers. Is the guy married? Where is his mother? What does she do? How did the guy working with you get the job? What does your translator say about the President? Does she/he turn her eyes away?

----

CAMP, I simply mean that we in the West have sophisticated institutions to prove honesty and we now rely on them. Elsewhere, people are admirably more direct. For example, I am cautious when using credit cards in some countries and in other countries, I use only cash. Outside of Canada and the US, I generally don't use personal cheques.

IMV, democracy is all about getting rid of the buggers peacefully. The symbolism of ordinary people doing this is critical. If we need a better simile, democracy is a lottery in which ordinary people choose the odds. Other methods to get rid of the buggers have proved worse. Your scheme to restrict voting to the Internet is atrocious, except if it means that voters will be viewed as cool.

I still prefer the purple finger scheme.

1. With a purple finger, you can't vote twice.

2. With a purple finger, it shows that - woman or man - you voted.

3. With a purple finger held up and a smile, it shows that you dipped your finger in secret.

4. With a purple finger, it shows that you live in a democracy.

I cannot imagine a better symbol of civililzed society than a purple finger held up, with a smile.

---

Online voting is a crazy idea (except for how our MPs vote in the House).

I think all Canadians should put their finger in purple ink when they vote, in Canada, in secret.

In some ways, democracy is simple: Democracy is a country where people hold up a purple finger and smile.

Edited July 6, 2009 by August1991

[Molly]

Standing! Applauding!

YES, August!

Edited July 6, 2009 by Molly

[benny]

In some ways, democracy is simple: Democracy is a country where people hold up a purple finger and smile.

Democracy is complex. Democracy is not about people hold up a purple finger because choosing the best candidates require judgment and dipping one finger in ink doesn't.

[Remiel]

I still prefer the purple finger scheme.

1. With a purple finger, you can't vote twice.

And if someone forces you do dip your finger in purple ink against your will at the wrong time and place, you do not even get to vote once!

Your system is only as secure as your supply of purple ink is. ( Not very. )

If you can not trust every man and woman you ask to tell you the truth with a smile alone, give up hope that any such symbolic system will ever attain the desired result.

[benny]

And if someone forces you do dip your finger in purple ink against your will at the wrong time and place, you do not even get to vote once!

Your system is only as secure as your supply of purple ink is. ( Not very. )

If you can not trust every man and woman you ask to tell you the truth with a smile alone, give up hope that any such symbolic system will ever attain the desired result.

And also at the other end, I'm certain biochemists can find a way to remove ink from fingers based on the way ink is removed from used paper for recycling purpose.

[CAMP]

I think that's great but you should ask direct questions of the person in front of you, and think clearly about the answers. Is the guy married? Where is his mother? What does she do? How did the guy working with you get the job? What does your translator say about the President? Does she/he turn her eyes away?

----

CAMP, I simply mean that we in the West have sophisticated institutions to prove honesty and we now rely on them. Elsewhere, people are admirably more direct. For example, I am cautious when using credit cards in some countries and in other countries, I use only cash. Outside of Canada and the US, I generally don't use personal cheques.

IMV, democracy is all about getting rid of the buggers peacefully. The symbolism of ordinary people doing this is critical. If we need a better simile, democracy is a lottery in which ordinary people choose the odds. Other methods to get rid of the buggers have proved worse. Your scheme to restrict voting to the Internet is atrocious, except if it means that voters will be viewed as cool.

I still prefer the purple finger scheme.

1. With a purple finger, you can't vote twice.

2. With a purple finger, it shows that - woman or man - you voted.

3. With a purple finger held up and a smile, it shows that you dipped your finger in secret.

4. With a purple finger, it shows that you live in a democracy.

I cannot imagine a better symbol of civililzed society than a purple finger held up, with a smile.

---

Online voting is a crazy idea (except for how our MPs vote in the House).

I think all Canadians should put their finger in purple ink when they vote, in Canada, in secret.

In some ways, democracy is simple: Democracy is a country where people hold up a purple finger and smile.

August, first I am not restricting voting to just the internet. I propose to add it as another method than the other main method of the walk in polling booth. (Usually a church basement)

Here's an interesting thought... if the big finger in the ink approach was used. What's to stop anyone from buying some ink without voting and doing the dip, just to pass it off as an I voted look at me? Seems like a flaw in the system. There's no honor among thieves is there?

[benny]

August, first I am not restricting voting to just the internet. I propose to add it as another method than the other main method of the walk in polling booth. (Usually a church basement)

Here's an interesting thought... if the big finger in the ink approach was used. What's to stop anyone from buying some ink without voting and doing the dip, just to pass it off as an I voted look at me? Seems like a flaw in the system. There's no honor among thieves is there?

It would be easier I think to agree to replace the House of Commons by an internet discussion forum than it will be to agree to replace public place elections by at home ones.

[CAMP]

It would be easier I think to agree to replace the House of Commons by an internet discussion forum than it will be to agree to replace public place elections by at home ones.

It might be easier but I'm suggesting to add to the constitutional monarch system and keep the traditional methods in place along with new technologies such as forums online. I simply say if we have an issue to solve why not have input from all sources rather than only elected officials with a majority party prevailing ideology . A good idea that solves a problem can originate from just about any person, party, or group. I don't want to limit us to having one party running the show for a 4 year mandate when a majority government exists and shelve the other ideologies. I prefer to have input from all and have a referendum or poll to push the government in the desired direction of the majority. This is true democracy. Sometimes an issue may require a Liberal point of view that solves it best while other times a conservative point of view. Let all Parle as the system suggests and have the process solved in a true democratic process.

[benny]

It might be easier but I'm suggesting to add to the constitutional monarch system and keep the traditional methods in place along with new technologies such as forums online. I simply say if we have an issue to solve why not have input from all sources rather than only elected officials with a majority party prevailing ideology . A good idea that solves a problem can originate from just about any person, party, or group. I don't want to limit us to having one party running the show for a 4 year mandate when a majority government exists and shelve the other ideologies. I prefer to have input from all and have a referendum or poll to push the government in the desired direction of the majority. This is true democracy. Sometimes an issue may require a Liberal point of view that solves it best while other times a conservative point of view. Let all Parle as the system suggests and have the process solved in a true democratic process.

A majority seems more like a dictatorship than a democracy to me.

[CAMP]

A majority seems more like a dictatorship than a democracy to me.

the more percentage of the total number of people involved in a decision the closer to a democracy you have become. The less people you have making a decision the closer to a dictatorship you become.

[benny]

the more percentage of the total number of people involved in a decision the closer to a democracy you have become. The less people you have making a decision the closer to a dictatorship you become.

A dictator can be widely supported by his people only because of his charisma that is why I think that democracy is more about the quality of involvement than about the quantity.

[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/]

With electronic voting, I think that we could see over 100 million Canadians vote on Election Day. What an achievement.

[benny]

With electronic voting, I think that we could see over 100 million Canadians vote on Election Day. What an achievement.

Posting an opinion on internet without giving a justification is voting electronically.

[CAMP]

Posting an opinion on internet without giving a justification is voting electronically.

Posting an opinion on the internet is an act of expression, that may pursuade an official vote if taken to heart by others who read it. Voting is taking an official stand to be used with others to actually decide how to solve the issue by relying on the law of 50% +1 or the majority rule.

[benny]

Posting an opinion on the internet is an act of expression, that may pursuade an official vote if taken to heart by others who read it. Voting is taking an official stand to be used with others to actually decide how to solve the issue by relying on the law of 50% +1 or the majority rule.

50% +1 or the majority rule of over 100 million Canadians on Election Day!

[CAMP]

50% +1 or the majority rule of over 100 million Canadians on Election Day!

On Election day nothing changes. Seats would be won or lost based on the results of the first past the post system.

The Constitutional Monarchy still exists. MP's however would primarily be responsible to their constituents, by setting the method in place to poll or vote referendum on large issues such as company bail outs, UN participation missions etc. or hold referendums. This way the people don't lose control in between mandates on these large issues. Criteria could be set in place to automatically require a referendum or poll for various issues. For smaller issues the government would run as it always has.

[Smallc]

why would we even have a government then? Just vote on everything.