Online voting increases voter turnout minimum 30%

[eyeball]

I don't think its laziness that is having the low turn out, its the TURN-OFF to the politicans!! The corruption, the scams, the lies, and personal attacks in the House, people are fed up and turned off! Voters, also, are working and the ones with families aren't always paying attention to Ottawa. The TRUST isn't there any more.

Bingo. My reason for not wanting to vote is that my vote also serves as a rubber stamp for a system I have no faith in and trust about as far as I can spit. Why encourage the bastards?

[madmax]

Even so, online voting is a stupid idea. If you can't get off your ass and take an hour out of your day to vote, you don't deserve to vote. Increasing voter turnout for the stupid, apathetic, uninformed and the lazy isn't a big priority for me, nor for the rest of Canada.

Bravo

[eyeball]

I think this whole canard about laziness is largely promoted by party hacks and flacks who oppose and fear change.

If voting is something that's too dangerous to be left to stupid voters then the politicians should just come out and say so. If being informed is that critical an issue make voters take issues comprehension tests before they vote. Who's going to complain, the lazy and the stupid? Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but only because a bunch of mealy mouthed politicians would be harping left, right and center about how their rights were being trampled.

It seems really pathetic that we should be denying our democracy the benefit of utilizing an informed, intelligent and engaged electorate as often as we can because we're afraid of catering to the lazy and the stupid. Of course the reality is that opponants to increasing, enhancing, improving or changing democracy are actually hiding behind them. How pathetic is that?

[M.Dancer]

If being informed is that critical an issue make voters take issues comprehension tests before they vote.

It seems really pathetic that we should be denying our democracy the benefit of utilizing an informed, intelligent and engaged electorate as often as we can because we're afraid of catering to the lazy and the stupid.

No one is denying anything to anyone. All they need do is go and exercise their right.

But if by some chance a comprehension test was enabled, I think your post would indicate that you would be barred from participating.

[Michael Hardner]

I think this whole canard about laziness is largely promoted by party hacks and flacks who oppose and fear change.

If voting is something that's too dangerous to be left to stupid voters then the politicians should just come out and say so. If being informed is that critical an issue make voters take issues comprehension tests before they vote. Who's going to complain, the lazy and the stupid? Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but only because a bunch of mealy mouthed politicians would be harping left, right and center about how their rights were being trampled.

It seems really pathetic that we should be denying our democracy the benefit of utilizing an informed, intelligent and engaged electorate as often as we can because we're afraid of catering to the lazy and the stupid. Of course the reality is that opponants to increasing, enhancing, improving or changing democracy are actually hiding behind them. How pathetic is that?

eyeball,

It's not stupid voters that are the problem, it's lazy and uncaring voters. Comprehension tests aren't the answer.

"We're afraid of catering to the lazy and the stupid" ? I don't know if we're afraid of that, but it sure as heck doesn't sound like something we would want to do.

In terms of enhancing, improving or changing democracy, I'm in favour if it returns us to the democracy that was designed from the outset - participatory, inclusive, and reflective of informed and interested participants. They accomplished that by only enfranchising Christian males of European descent who owned land. How would you do it ?

[eyeball]

eyeball,

It's not stupid voters that are the problem, it's lazy and uncaring voters. Comprehension tests aren't the answer.

"We're afraid of catering to the lazy and the stupid" ? I don't know if we're afraid of that, but it sure as heck doesn't sound like something we would want to do.

In terms of enhancing, improving or changing democracy, I'm in favour if it returns us to the democracy that was designed from the outset - participatory, inclusive, and reflective of informed and interested participants. They accomplished that by only enfranchising Christian males of European descent who owned land. How would you do it ?

Citizens assemblies to craft legislation, public referenda to pass it, a council of elders or senate to give it some 2nd thoughts and bureacrats to execute what these produce.

I care and I'm not lazy but I don't see the point of supporting a determinedly inflexible system that I despise. Apparently the biggest thing undermining it at the moment is poor voter turnout. Perhaps an organized boycott would put a finer point on why some people refuse to subscribe to something they've lost all faith in.

Perhaps in the short term, to help dispel what appears to be a spurious unsubstantiated charge of laziness, we could start counting deliberately spoiled ballots. How hard would it be to do that?

[M.Dancer]

If being informed is that critical an issue make voters take issues comprehension tests before they vote.

Perhaps in the short term, to help dispel what appears to be a spurious unsubstantiated charge of laziness, we could start counting deliberately spoiled ballots. How hard would it be to do that?

All spoiled votes are counted...and thrown away. I suppose we would require psychics to tell the ones that were deliberately spoiled for your reasons from the ones that weren't.

[eyeball]

All spoiled votes are counted...and thrown away. I suppose we would require psychics to tell the ones that were deliberately spoiled for your reasons from the ones that weren't.

I suppose a moron might need someone to point out these are people that obviously cared enough to go cast a ballot.

All spoiled votes are counted...and thrown away.

That's the lazy way to avoid trying to interpret what voters really want - its a real good sign of an apathetic system.

[M.Dancer]

That's the lazy way to avoid trying to interpret what voters really want - its a real good sign of an apathetic system.

I would suggest that we employ diviners who after they have determined what the motivatiuon was for spoiling their ballot, and interpret such, the augers can interpret the entrails of sacrificial victims to determime what policy should be...

[eyeball]

I would suggest that we employ diviners who after they have determined what the motivatiuon was for spoiling their ballot, and interpret such, the augers can interpret the entrails of sacrificial victims to determime what policy should be...

That sounds appropriate for a system designed for the horse and buggy era.

[CAMP]

It is not the person getting hacked, but the banking sites. I would expect anyone trying to flog online voting would know this.

Wow what do you do Dancer hide your money under your matress? LOL! Otherwise you must be living in perpetual fear of an empty bank account every day! Rest easy my friend. Your money is safe, and for that matter so is mine. An online voting system obviously could be made equal in security to a banking system. The world is using the banking system now. It's a no brainer... Canada should be using online voting.

[M.Dancer]

Wow what do you do Dancer hide your money under your matress? LOL! Otherwise you must be living in perpetual fear of an empty bank account every day! Rest easy my friend. Your money is safe, and for that matter so is mine. An online voting system obviously could be made equal in security to a banking system. The world is using the banking system now. It's a no brainer... Canada should be using online voting.

You have yet to offer a good reason to augment what already works flawlessly with what most probably won't.

I would like to see the server that could handle 3,000,000 requests at once...The sunsequent crash would make Canada a laughing stock and make palm beach look smooth and well run.

Anyway, no point continuing the discussion, it ain't gonna happen cause their is neither the need nor the motivation.

[CAMP]

You have yet to offer a good reason to augment what already works flawlessly with what most probably won't.

I would like to see the server that could handle 3,000,000 requests at once...The sunsequent crash would make Canada a laughing stock and make palm beach look smooth and well run.

Anyway, no point continuing the discussion, it ain't gonna happen cause their is neither the need nor the motivation.

The voting process would be done over a week so it would be spread out over time. It's not a problem.

Funny you should say their is no motivation. Almost everyone I talk to in person loves the idea. It will happen I assure you it is coming like white on rice! Your flawless system isn't so flawless. I've heard of people taking their cell phone cams into the voting booth and marking their ballot showing someone they received money from that they voted as per request. I've also heard of ballot boxes disappearing. Convenience is the word of the day and online voting is exactly that. I've heard all the tripe about being lazy and I should think it's some kind of ritual that I should observe to go down to a voting station etc. Sorry my ritual is let my fingers do the walking on my keypad.

Edited September 23, 2009 by CAMP

[M.Dancer]

I've heard of people taking their cell phone cams into the voting booth and marking their ballot showing someone they received money from that they voted as per request. I've also heard of ballot boxes disappearing.

I have heard that aliens can read our thoughts. I don't believe it...but I have heard...

[Michael Hardner]

Citizens assemblies to craft legislation, public referenda to pass it, a council of elders or senate to give it some 2nd thoughts and bureacrats to execute what these produce.

I care and I'm not lazy but I don't see the point of supporting a determinedly inflexible system that I despise. Apparently the biggest thing undermining it at the moment is poor voter turnout. Perhaps an organized boycott would put a finer point on why some people refuse to subscribe to something they've lost all faith in.

Perhaps in the short term, to help dispel what appears to be a spurious unsubstantiated charge of laziness, we could start counting deliberately spoiled ballots. How hard would it be to do that?

Surely *some* non-voters are lazy. How many, conservatively ? Probably a lot.

And aren't spoiled ballots counted now ?

You're living in one of the best systems in the world, not that it couldn't use some fine tuning. Fine tuning doesn't include dumb suggestions like mandatory voting, PR, online voting, or referrenda.