Online voting poll Are you in favour Yes or No?

[tomcat]

Online voting has the ability to increase voter turn out dramatically.

Young people of today are very internet savvy and use there cell phones for communication regularly.

Most homes have a computer, a phone, or cell phone, so there is pretty much universal access to some method of electronic voting.

Security issues are of concern to many who don't know how it would be accomplished.

To the best of my understanding having looked into it, here is how it would happen.

Everyone on the voters list would be issued a pin number via the regular mail.

As long as you don't move around alot this works fine. If you are fairly transient due to school or just not established yet then you may have some issues getting a pin number easily but if you check early enough before the election you can sort out this issue and be eligible to vote.

Along with your pin your pin number you would also have established a personal question (s) that must be answered in order to vote. Electronic voting would occur seven days prior to the walk in vote to eliminate overloading the internet system provider. All voting would be tabulated in real time with all results held secret by the designated agent who looks after the system. After the electronic voting is turned off, print outs are made ready for the walk in polling booths to use that will have the names of anyone who has voted stroked out so they can not vote again if they walk in.

All results from the walk in voters along with the computerized votes are tabulated and results are made public just as they are now.

This is the basic idea of how online voting would work.

Please fill out the poll and give us your response.

[Progressive Tory]

I think we discussed this topic before but I took your poll.

[Alta4ever]

So what is stopping these tech savvy people from getting off their asses walking or driving to the polling station and putting an x in a box, is this too complicated for them? Why should we go through all this expense for people who can't even take a little responsiblity on themselves to exercise their right. Are these people just lazy or what? The last thing we need to do it is increase the expense of elections by having taxpayers poay for another federal government over blown bloated computer program contract. Pencil and paper works fine, if you can't be bothered to get off your ass and go vote then maybe you deserve what you get.

[prussell94]

There is still going to be the same amount of uninformed people than before online voting.

[Alta4ever]

There is still going to be the same amount of uninformed people than before online voting.

Who said anything about uninformed people? That phrase doesn't appear in this thread.

[madmax]

Just for the record...

NO !!!!

[Riverwind]

Online voting has the ability to increase voter turn out dramatically.

Not at chance unless the system is made so "convenient" that it is easily manipulated. Any system with security compariable to online banking would require a paper application sent by snail mail. Furthermore, the online password recovery mechanism would require contact with a human via telephone - a system that would be swamped when an election is called as people realize the can't remember passwords or security questions they rarely use.

To make matters worse, an e-voting system would have to force people to choose e-voting or poll voting (just like the special ballot today). So people who are unable access the system because of overloaded switchboards could easily find themselves unable to vote.

Given that context there would be an easy way deny people their right to vote if you know their username: login with a bad password too many times and the system will lock the account out and leave the legimate owner with no choice but to call the overloaded switchboard.

I find it hard to believe that people who are too lazy to vote at regular polls would be willing to send snail mail applications and deal with overloaded phone operators.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

Online voting has the ability to increase voter turn out dramatically.

Or not.

Young people of today are very internet savvy and use there cell phones for communication regularly.

Surely you're not advocating voting via cell phone.

Most homes have a computer, a phone, or cell phone, so there is pretty much universal access to some method of electronic voting.

Security issues are of concern to many who don't know how it would be accomplished.

You've already demonstrated you know nothing about the security issues. I'll wager you don't even know what a forged SSL certificate is, or what a man-in-the-middle attack is.

To the best of my understanding having looked into it,

It's pretty apparent you haven't really looked into it.

here is how it would happen.

Everyone on the voters list would be issued a pin number via the regular mail.

As long as you don't move around alot this works fine. If you are fairly transient due to school or just not established yet then you may have some issues getting a pin number easily but if you check early enough before the election you can sort out this issue and be eligible to vote.

Along with your pin your pin number you would also have established a personal question (s) that must be answered in order to vote. Electronic voting would occur seven days prior to the walk in vote to eliminate overloading the internet system provider. All voting would be tabulated in real time with all results held secret by the designated agent who looks after the system. After the electronic voting is turned off, print outs are made ready for the walk in polling booths to use that will have the names of anyone who has voted stroked out so they can not vote again if they walk in.

All results from the walk in voters along with the computerized votes are tabulated and results are made public just as they are now.

This is the basic idea of how online voting would work.

Please fill out the poll and give us your response.

No paper backup of a ballot. Voting via cellphone. No acknowledgement of real security issues.

And I don't actually believe any claim that this will somehow see many more voters.

[DFCaper]

I would think $10 a vote would be a minimum price. If there is no election within 4-5 years, a party may break even with the $1.95 a year they recieve.

I can maybe start a website that buy's votes for parties.... hmmm.... That and proportional elections, we can maybe start a party and buy our way into gov't

[tomcat]

I think we discussed this topic before but I took your poll.

Yes thank you. I made the poll because there is another thread going on about this without a poll.

[tomcat]

So what is stopping these tech savvy people from getting off their asses walking or driving to the polling station and putting an x in a box, is this too complicated for them? Why should we go through all this expense for people who can't even take a little responsiblity on themselves to exercise their right. Are these people just lazy or what? The last thing we need to do it is increase the expense of elections by having taxpayers poay for another federal government over blown bloated computer program contract. Pencil and paper works fine, if you can't be bothered to get off your ass and go vote then maybe you deserve what you get.

Your assuming alot saying what you've said. Many people just aren't available in their riding during the time of an election. School, going south for the winter, business travel etc. there are many reasons why someone can't vote the night of the election. The idea here is to fill out the poll hope you have so we can get a good idea of who's in favour and who isn't. We now know where you stand. Thanks

[Alta4ever]

Your assuming alot saying what you've said. Many people just aren't available in their riding during the time of an election. School, going south for the winter, business travel etc. there are many reasons why someone can't vote the night of the election. The idea here is to fill out the poll hope you have so we can get a good idea of who's in favour and who isn't. We now know where you stand. Thanks

We have mail in ballots and advanced polling. IF you are interested in finding out how to vote given specific circumstances call elections canada. Its not hard, it just takes a little effort, not necessarily a bad thing.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Alta4ever

[tomcat]

Not at chance unless the system is made so "convenient" that it is easily manipulated. Any system with security compariable to online banking would require a paper application sent by snail mail. Furthermore, the online password recovery mechanism would require contact with a human via telephone - a system that would be swamped when an election is called as people realize the can't remember passwords or security questions they rarely use.

To make matters worse, an e-voting system would have to force people to choose e-voting or poll voting (just like the special ballot today). So people who are unable access the system because of overloaded switchboards could easily find themselves unable to vote.

Given that context there would be an easy way deny people their right to vote if you know their username: login with a bad password too many times and the system will lock the account out and leave the legimate owner with no choice but to call the overloaded switchboard.

I find it hard to believe that people who are too lazy to vote at regular polls would be willing to send snail mail applications and deal with overloaded phone operators.

You have a bad memory River? Is that what your afraid of? Anyways hope you filled out the poll... oh yah only once....lol.....

[ToadBrother]

We have mail in ballots and advanced polling. IF you are interested in finding out how to vote given specific circumstances call elections canada. Its not hard, it just takes a little effort, not necessarily a bad thing.

And that's really my point. Elections Canada has gone out of its way to accommodate voters. Anyone who says "It's too hard to vote" has never bothered looking into it.

[tomcat]

We have mail in ballots and advanced polling. IF you are interested in finding out how to vote given specific circumstances call elections canada. Its not hard, it just takes a little effort, not necessarily a bad thing.

There are advantages to having a higher voter turn out. Online voting is just one way, I'm sure there are others. But in this day and age I'm sure there are many who would like to take only a few seconds to vote verses a half hour or more. Time is money!

[Alta4ever]

There are advantages to having a higher voter turn out. Online voting is just one way, I'm sure there are others. But in this day and age I'm sure there are many who would like to take only a few seconds to vote verses a half hour or more. Time is money!

And voting is worth every penny, if you think that the time spent in a voting booth is a waste of you time then by all means stay home. We the taxpayer should not have to accomidate your laziness or ego, if you want the right then the onus is on you to show up and exercise it. If you can't do this, then the right has never ment much to you.

I would much rather have a turn out of 40% of eager interested voters, then a turn out of 80% of apathetic, uninterested voters.

[Riverwind]

You have a bad memory River? Is that what your afraid of? Anyways hope you filled out the poll... oh yah only once....lol.....

Gee. I guess it is obvious that you no nothing about the security issues involved in electronic voting and your opinion on whether the system would be secure is absolutely worthless.

Your ignorance does not change the fact that an e-voting system can be secure or inconvenient. Nobody will support an insecure system and an inconvenient system won't increase voter turnout.

In either case, an electronic system is a huge waste of time and money.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

And voting is worth every penny, if you think that the time spent in a voting booth is a waste of you time then by all means stay home. We the taxpayer should not have to accomidate your laziness or ego, if you want the right then the onus is on you to show up and exercise it. If you can't do this, then the right has never ment much to you.

I would much rather have a turn out of 40% of eager interested voters, then a turn out of 80% of apathetic, uninterested voters.

Complete agreement. I see no reason to spend money and add security risks to our electoral system to accommodate those whose threshold of interest is just enough to bother going to a website. I've never been very onside with all these initiatives like mandatory voting. I see no reason at all to bend over backwards so that some lazy, apathetic twit might, just might, feel slightly more inclined to mark a ballot. We have a tried and true system that, compared to even some of our fellow democracies, manages to stay largely honest. To those that don't vote, all I can say is "screw 'em".

[ToadBrother]

There are advantages to having a higher voter turn out. Online voting is just one way, I'm sure there are others. But in this day and age I'm sure there are many who would like to take only a few seconds to vote verses a half hour or more. Time is money!

Oh come on. Unless you're foolish and head out at the peak times around 5pm, it's not that much of a problem. I did that once, the first time I voted, and I learned my lesson. I go in the morning on my way to work, and I've never spent more than about fifteen minutes at the polls.

[Wilber]

There are advantages to having a higher voter turn out. Online voting is just one way, I'm sure there are others. But in this day and age I'm sure there are many who would like to take only a few seconds to vote verses a half hour or more. Time is money!

If someone feels it is not worth their effort to take a half or three quarters of an hour once every three or four years to vote, why should anyone go to the trouble and expense of making it easier for them? People risk their lives to get to polls in some countries. We have become a nation of whiners who expect everything brought to them.

[madmax]

If someone feels it is not worth their effort to take a half or three quarters of an hour once every three or four years to vote, why should anyone go to the trouble and expense of making it easier for them? People risk their lives to get to polls in some countries. We have become a nation of whiners who expect everything brought to them.

I think Wilber has made a strong statement. I see no reason for the government to spend more money, and the costs to the taxpayer would be steep, to implement online voting. This isn't a cheap endeavour.

An interesting observation is how few people are voting in this poll, compared to the "Coalition Poll" a few weeks back.

And that's just it. Apathy.

Online voting doesn't change Apathy.

No amount of online voting could get voters more interested in their Councillors or Mayors. If you don't know them and don't care, you are just as apt to be surfing the net and downloading music, then realize, oh yeah there is a vote going on, and continue to surf the net.

The major vocal people here are against. There are a handful of those for it, and most aren't paying attention.

Here is something to think about.

Forced by law to vote, combined with online voting ......

70% against so far, that is quite a message coming from those computer savy individuals on MLW

Edited January 27, 2009 by madmax

[Wild Bill]

Online voting doesn't change Apathy.

You've nailed it!

I think part of the reason why certain computer fans are pushing for online voting is what has been called the "Gee Whiz!" factor. This is where someone can be so enamoured of a technology that they want to use it for EVERYTHING they can think of, whether it is a good fit or not.

I had a manager back in the late 80's who was into the new fangled personal computing. He dazzled the higherups with spreadsheets for new projects, showing fantastic profits and sales figures. Me, I too was versed in that world but I saw the flaws. Any important figure in his spreadsheet was a wild-assed guess he had pulled out of his butt! The spreadsheet would instantly spread it all over the columns on the page but it was classic garbage in - garbage out. He did well with it for some years, until our branch went bankrupt and was closed, taking all our jobs.

Many guitar amplifier manufacturers jumped into the transistor world back in the 60's, leaving vacuum tubes in the dust. Most lost their shirts. Why? Electric guitar is supposed to have some distortion, especially rock. Transistors work very well to cleanly amplify but their distortion is harsh and not pleasant.

Online voting is just another "Gee Whiz!" technology. It's impressive when used on Canadian Idol. Hundreds of thousands of fans can instantly text their vote on their cell phones and Blackberries.

Yet when all is said and done Ben Mulroney is still plastic and 'lame-ass'.

The speed of tabulation is what impresses some folks! The ease of voting while sitting at home in your 'jammies. The technology is so bright that without shades these folks just can't wrap their heads around the security problems, blowing them off as easily solved out of sheer faith and not from any detailed understanding. Like a 'Dilbert' cartoon where their manager constantly comes out with impossible to achieve high-sounding goals and simply delegates them onto his underlings, who have to deal with the frustration.

Online security is a problem overlapping many areas. It is constantly being improved to protect and encourage e-commerce. Perhaps within a few years it will have advanced to the point where we could trust it with election results, but not today!

[Wilber]

No amount of online voting could get voters more interested in their Councillors or Mayors. If you don't know them and don't care, you are just as apt to be surfing the net and downloading music, then realize, oh yeah there is a vote going on, and continue to surf the net.

Interesting statement. I take more trouble to find out about the candidates in my civic elections than I do with provincial or federal elections. I go to the all candidates meetings, the odd council meeting and keep track of how they vote on issues that concern me. They are a much bigger factor in what effects me and my neighborhood on a daily basis than either of the other levels of government. All the candidates for council appear on my ballot instead of six or seven for one seat in a federal parliament out of a couple of thousand candidates for three hundred odd seats. Also, I always get to vote for a mayor but have never had a PM candidate run in my riding, so my vote means much more in the final outcome.

[tomcat]

If someone feels it is not worth their effort to take a half or three quarters of an hour once every three or four years to vote, why should anyone go to the trouble and expense of making it easier for them? People risk their lives to get to polls in some countries. We have become a nation of whiners who expect everything brought to them.

hmmm perhaps you've lost count how many elections we have... provicially, federally, municipally... hmmm start adding them up... just the federal we've had more than what your saying in the last 4 years.

Time is money. Walk in voting is not for everyone. Obviously 40% of the people don't vote for various reasons. Expense wise it's relatively inexpensive. I'll actually check into the cost just to see.

That fact that people risk their lives is mute... so what...

I'm not whining.. maybe you are about people you assume are lazy or whatever just because you have to walk to vote.

I'm simply here to tell you and anyone else who cares to know... it's comming... sooner than you think!

And I bet you'll be one of the first to use it when it's implemented!

[Wilber]

hmmm perhaps you've lost count how many elections we have... provicially, federally, municipally... hmmm start adding them up... just the federal we've had more than what your saying in the last 4 years.

Time is money. Walk in voting is not for everyone. Obviously 40% of the people don't vote for various reasons. Expense wise it's relatively inexpensive. I'll actually check into the cost just to see.

That fact that people risk their lives is mute... so what...

I'm not whining.. maybe you are about people you assume are lazy or whatever just because you have to walk to vote.

I'm simply here to tell you and anyone else who cares to know... it's comming... sooner than you think!

And I bet you'll be one of the first to use it when it's implemented!

Municipal elections every three years, provincial every four, federal every three to four on average but make it every two, what the hell. At 1/2 hour a pop that is what maybe 2 1/2 hours of your time over four years. A lot less time than most people spend sitting in Tims or Starbucks in a week. A hell of a lot less time than you spend on this forum. They are lazy and the fact that other people will risk their lives to vote while poor whiny complacent Canadians won't get off their fat asses to spend a half hour to do so is not mute, it is gauge of our sense of entitlement. Poor baby, what is it you do that makes your time so valuable? Bet I don't use it. This is one poll or vote that can't be done online or by phone and that is what I like about it. In part, the fact it takes some effort is what makes it worth doing.