Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[benny]

I used to be.

And you are/were?

Benoit

[lily]

Benoit

Oh, cool! I don't recognize you all naked without your avi.

Glad to see you here.

I'm a little perturbed that you seem to have recognized me from the "I'm lazy" comment though.......

Edited July 13, 2009 by lily

[benny]

Oh, cool! I don't recognize you all naked without your avi.

Glad to see you here.

I'm a little perturbed that you seem to have recognized me from the "I'm lazy" comment though.......

Here is a much better place, thanks to the moderators!

[CAMP]

I still don't trust it--for sure there will be glitches and there is no way to know that the one person vote thing is secure. How will you stop mulitple votes? What about those who don't have computers? My vision of this is Lictor types--right-wingers with their tongues hanging out one side their mouths hitting the button multiple times

Those who don't have computers would still have the walk in polling method as it is now. Also online voting really should be called electronic voting because you could also use your telephone or cell phone. Alterantely if you really wanted to use a computer the libraries usually have a few and there are internet cafe's. The point is to make it convient when someone is not in their riding to vote as well. Multiple votes would be very difficult to near impossilbe. The computer system knows how many votes it would have at a 100% turn out. PINs or ID's are only handed out one per valid voter from the official list. You would also have a secondary check of ID after you have passed the PIN entering mode. Electronic voting is not like American Idol.

It has been well thought out and made very secure as online banking.

[M.Dancer]

The best thing about online voting is the wife doesn't have to worry her pretty head over who to vote for or be bothered how to figure all that complicated computer stuff...husbands can take care of all that while she fetches a cold beer.

Online voting cures female emancipation.

[M.Dancer]

It has been well thought out and made very secure as online banking.

Oh now I really feel good about it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityf...ng_data_tr.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jul/0...king-fails-test

[benny]

The best thing about online voting is the wife doesn't have to worry her pretty head over who to vote for or be bothered how to figure all that complicated computer stuff...husbands can take care of all that while she fetches a cold beer.

Online voting cures female emancipation.

Thanks to you, online voting raises the problem of women emancipation at a level where "curing" it will not be a laughing matter any longer.

[CAMP]

Thanks to you, online voting raises the problem of women emancipation at a level where "curing" it will not be a laughing matter any longer.

please elaborate.

[benny]

please elaborate.

Democracy vs Intimacy

[CAMP]

Democracy vs Intimacy

So the woman could cut the husband off... if he doesn't prove he voted her way...lol! Visa versa. There's no honour among lovers or theives....lol!

[Bonam]

Elected representatives of the people will always be required to voice the opinions of citizens. Representatives must propose legislation, but the people should be able to ratify certain pieces of legislation.

I disagree. The future form of government shall be the "Internet Democracy", in which there are no elected representatives, but every citizen can register on a categorized, hierarchical, internet forum and propose ideas as well as vote on issues. Ideas would initially be posted on small, discussion-group type boards, and those that are deemed to have merit by the smaller groups would work their way up higher through several levels of discussion.

[benny]

So the woman could cut the husband off... if he doesn't prove he voted her way...lol! Visa versa. There's no honour among lovers or theives....lol!

Contrary to M.Dancer, I think there is nothing ridiculous in imagining a democracy penetrating into intimacy to such a degree that any adult member of a household feels a social duty to denounce another member trying to buy votes.

[Michael Hardner]

What about those people without computers ?

On election day they should let people vote at Tim Hortons too. Anything to prevent anybody from making any actual effort to contributing to democracy. Let's also make sure to get rid of actual issues so we can focus on the candidate's hair and their personal lives.

Seriously, Harper's hair has got to be the most under reported asset that Canada has. Most of our "good hair" PMs had short terms (Kim Campbell, John Turner) but Harper will have a long tenure, probably 6 or 7 back-to-back minority governments - all featuring "the dry look" from Gilette.

For God's sake, can we stop talking about complicated "issues" and making people leave their homes to vote ?!? People are stressed out enough !

Edited July 24, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[benny]

What about those people without computers ?

On election day they should let people vote at Tim Hortons too. Anything to prevent anybody from making any actual effort to contributing to democracy. Let's also make sure to get rid of actual issues so we can focus on the candidate's hair and their personal lives.

Seriously, Harper's hair has got to be the most under reported asset that Canada has. Most of our "good hair" PMs had short terms (Kim Campbell, John Turner) but Harper will have a long tenure, probably 6 or 7 back-to-back minority governments - all featuring "the dry look" from Gilette.

For God's sake, can we stop talking about complicated "issues" and making people leave their homes to vote ?!? People are stressed out enough !

Electronic voting is not easier, it is harder.

[madmax]

What about those people without computers ?

They can use their cell phones... let them eat cake.

On election day they should let people vote at Tim Hortons too. Anything to prevent anybody from making any actual effort to contributing to democracy. Let's also make sure to get rid of actual issues so we can focus on the candidate's hair and their personal lives.

Elections must be held during Tim Hortons roll up the rim to win contests.

[benny]

Elections must be held during Tim Hortons roll up the rim to win contests.

Debating politics is more important than voting and it can be done at Tim Hortons.

Edited July 24, 2009 by benny

[Michael Hardner]

Long live our Donutocracy.

[Michael Hardner]

But by all means, we should not expect people to put any effort in to vote, and certainly not to go beyond television in order to investigate the issues. Voter turnout must be high - 100% uninformed voter turnout is better than 10% wise and informed voter turnout.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

And how many roomates are stealing cards wow..

None currently, because you have to show up to a polling station with a peice of official mail to prove that you are who you are, and you can only do that once because if you try again, the people running the polling station will notice that the same person showed up twice.

I guess your roomate could also steal your pin number for your bank account and steal your money too.

That's much more difficult. Provided that you're not an idiot, you wouldn't go writing your bank card pin number anywhere for people to find.

There is a pin number for online voting and you must answer a private question before you can register your vote...

Someone who is good at social engineering can easily find out the answers to "private questions".

so there are checks in place to create security. Like I said in an earlier post, there will always be criminals out there to try and circumvent everything. Look at the up side. I'd much rather see a 30% increase in voter turnout compared to a very small number of students who stole your pin number and some how found out your private question. Pretty far fetched to think that one student is going to cause a difference.

I would rather see people who care about democracy going out to vote. Increasing a percentage just for the sake of doing so is not really a healthy way to promote democracy. If people can't be bothered to know the issues and get to a polling station, they shouldn't vote in the first place.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

This is mind boggling as to how you can sit there and say such things... I have been in contact with a student who goes to university in California. She couldn't vote last election. She would love to have online voting to be able to.

So you want people to fill out forms and stuff envelopes all in the name of having to go to a polling booth... buddy I own 3 dogs walk them everyday.,.. I work my living *** off 12 hours a day because I'm self employed and you can sit there behind your little computer and bitch about everybody being lazy... you get your head out of the sand. I know plenty about political issues.. and always vote.. but I would love to be able to vote online so I don't have to take that trip to the mundane polling station.

If you don't want to go to a polling station because you think it's boring, I'd say your priorities are just a little misplaced. Also, no one forced you to own three dogs.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Just to clarify. I agree with this statement and I was wondering if you are for or against Public Funding of Political Parties. I would hope you would be against it. If voting isn't a government service, you have created another level of logic against the public funding of political parties.

Would this be a reasonable assumption???

Not one bit. Public funding of political parties is there to ensure that one party doesn't have a disproportionate amount of campaign funding over all of the other parties. If one party is extremely rich because its base is mainly elderly people with money (ie, the Conservative Party), while the other parties are representative of more have-nots then, without public funds, the richer party will always be more likely to win. Last time I checked, we live in a democracy, not an oligarchy.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

A little obvious would you not say? Aside from that, hackers are not real big on politics. They tend to be a little introverted and seek little challenges for themselves, but not for publicity, that would be their downfall.

Hackers are not big on politics?! Are you joking? Have you never heard of Kevin Mitnick? Hacktivism? Hackers are massively into politics. If it weren't for hackers, DVD encryption and copyright protection in general would never be an issue. Net neutrality would be a whisper in the wind.

[madmax]

Not one bit. Public funding of political parties is there to ensure that one party doesn't have a disproportionate amount of campaign funding over all of the other parties. If one party is extremely rich because its base is mainly elderly people with money (ie, the Conservative Party), while the other parties are representative of more have-nots then, without public funds, the richer party will always be more likely to win. Last time I checked, we live in a democracy, not an oligarchy.

We Disagree...

We live in a democracy. It costs nothing to cast a ballot. Political Parties should not be financially rewarded when someone casts a ballot for them. Running paper candidates for money is not democracy, and quite frankly independants get in with virtually no tax payer monies.. from any of the schemes including public funding per vote received.

No reason to create slush funds for lame parties that don't have the proper support to run a campaign.

If the United Farmers, Social Credit, Independants, CCF, Progressives, and REFORM were able to scratch out grass roots campaigns then virtually any party worth their salt can get along without the taxpayers money.

As for having an effect on Democracy.. while not winning a single seat.... one of the ideas of the National Party 1993 was the funding of political parties......and it was adopted by the Liberals.....

If you don't want to go to a polling station because you think it's boring, I'd say your priorities are just a little misplaced. Also, no one forced you to own three dogs.

We agree on this one

[benny]

If you don't want to go to a polling station because you think it's boring, I'd say your priorities are just a little misplaced.

What if one goes voting only because s/he is bored at home!?

[Malaclypse the Younger]

We live in a democracy. It costs nothing to cast a ballot.

It may cost nothing to cast a ballot, but to convince people to cast a ballot for your party does cost money, and that is the core of the issue. If one party has the funds to mount massive smear campaigns when there isn't even an election happening, while the rest have to beg for donations to combat all of the smearing so that they can do some actual campaigning, there is a severe disproportionality in election fairness.

Political Parties should not be financially rewarded when someone casts a ballot for them.

Why not? They don't just get money for each and every vote, they have to reach a certain percentage of the vote before they can even get the funds. In other words, you have to prove that a significant number of people take your platform seriously before you can receive matching funds.

Running paper candidates for money is not democracy, and quite frankly independants get in with virtually no tax payer monies.. from any of the schemes including public funding per vote received.

Independants often already have a seat in a party they broke away from, and maintain that seat once they break away, then lose the next election. Running as an independant is extremely difficult.

No reason to create slush funds for lame parties that don't have the proper support to run a campaign.

Currently, what you call "lame parties" includes everyone but the Conservative Party. We won't have much of a democracy left if the Conservative Party is the only one that can get any sort of cross-country support, but I'm sure that's what they're aiming for.

If the United Farmers, Social Credit, Independants, CCF, Progressives, and REFORM were able to scratch out grass roots campaigns then virtually any party worth their salt can get along without the taxpayers money.

This isn't the 1950's anymore, our base of well-established political parties that have any reasonable amount of clout has shrunk to four. The Reform Party had a base of people with money, also known as the elderly. Now, it is harder to get people to vote for grass roots parties because they're all so convinced that democracy is a horse race.

And, finally, see my signature line. I think Abbie Hoffman was quite right in that regard. Matching funds for struggling political parties is giving freedom to dissidents. The richest parties have already won their freedom.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger