Internet or electronic voting

[CAMP]

Electronic voting and internet voting can make hijacking an election much easier.

I love technology, but the way those electronic voting machines can easily be tampered with, I guess anything can be tampered with, but you gotta draw a line at how easily it can be tampered with.

Here is a lengthly article that is loaded with lots of information about internet security.

http://www.canadian-alternative.com/Intern...urity_scare.pdf

Sorry for the length of the article but it answers all questions in detail. For those of you who are afraid of the security I think this article pretty much says it all, please give it a total read.

Although it is a US document it is relevant for Canadians. This article was written by a US based Professor, William J. Kelleher.

Edited July 1, 2009 by CAMP

[Sabre Rider]

Electronic voting would improve our Democracy simply because it increases voter turnout. Proven no arguement there, it's fact now.

The security of the system would be just as secure as the walk in methods, and I believe would actually improve the security to an even higher level.

You can rest assure that the Conservatives or Liberals would never allow electronic voting as this would further erode their hold on power to control Canadians.

Electronic voting would also allow for Canadians to have a say through out the mandate via referendums or polls if the government actually wanted to know how we feel. (Which they usually don't)

In short Electronic voting would put more power in the hands of the people.

Don't you want more power?

Sure I want more power, however the vast majority of people are barely qualified to exercise the power they currently hold. Giving them more power is equally as scary as giving the Government more power. The old saw about bread, circuses and votes is just as apt today as when it was coined 2000 years ago.

[August1991]

In short electronic voting can and has increased voter turnout. When implemented with many of the recommendations Intelivote councils our clients on the choices available to voters increases and the turnout does as well.

...

I have attached a recent document created by a US based Professor, William J. Kelleher, that is an interesting read about the issues of internet voting.

CAMP, you are a bureaucrat/paid shill/idiot/bad salesperson and you entirely miss the point.

Electronic voting and internet voting can make hijacking an election much easier.

I love technology, but the way those electronic voting machines can easily be tampered with, I guess anything can be tampered with, but you gotta draw a line at how easily it can be tampered with.

GostHacked, you are a decent, suspicious person and while wrong, you get the point.

----

This is not about security or voting rates. Democracy is not about making it easier for people to vote on the Internet. Democracy is about people showing in public freely that they control privately the State. Let's do it once a year, on a Sunday, when the weather is nice. If some people want to stay at home and not vote, let them. At least they can exercise the vote if it matters.

Edited July 1, 2009 by August1991

[CAMP]

CAMP, you are a bureaucrat/paid shill/idiot/bad salesperson and you entirely miss the point.

GostHacked, you are a decent, suspicious person and while wrong, you get the point.

----

This is not about security or voting rates. Democracy is not about making it easier for people to vote on the Internet. Democracy is about people showing in public freely that they control privately the State. Let's do it once a year, on a Sunday, when the weather is nice. If some people want to stay at home and not vote, let them. At least they can exercise the vote if it matters.

The way things are going we do vote about once a year lately...lol

[capricorn]

Security, convenience and increased voting rates, all dependent on the integrity of the internet and access to a computer. With that in mind, I have yet to find one argument in favour of internet voting that makes it superior to our present voting system. The cynic in me thinks that those who advocate for internet voting do so because they think it will help their side win.

There are other aspects to our present system that are invaluable. Elections provide temporary employment which injects money into local economies. In addition, friends and neighbours, election workers and voters, cross paths at the polling booths. They exchange greetings, jokes and stories. Internet voting would wipe out this human contact, which occurs far too seldom these days.

There's more to our voting system than meets the eye.

[Griz]

The voting will turn-out like American Idol voting and the person that really should win, won't

[CAMP]

Security, convenience and increased voting rates, all dependent on the integrity of the internet and access to a computer. With that in mind, I have yet to find one argument in favour of internet voting that makes it superior to our present voting system. The cynic in me thinks that those who advocate for internet voting do so because they think it will help their side win.

There are other aspects to our present system that are invaluable. Elections provide temporary employment which injects money into local economies. In addition, friends and neighbours, election workers and voters, cross paths at the polling booths. They exchange greetings, jokes and stories. Internet voting would wipe out this human contact, which occurs far too seldom these days.

There's more to our voting system than meets the eye.

Well you are right there, yes I want my side to win. So what is my side? The regular everyday Canadian who has lost our democracy to a corrupt system of Liberals and Conservatives, and once in a while NDP's. I want to have direct democracy where my MP will be responsible to my riding and not a party boss. Online voting will help that process evolve.

[Michael Hardner]

Well you are right there, yes I want my side to win. So what is my side? The regular everyday Canadian who has lost our democracy to a corrupt system of Liberals and Conservatives, and once in a while NDP's. I want to have direct democracy where my MP will be responsible to my riding and not a party boss. Online voting will help that process evolve.

CAMP,

Say what you like about our governments, they actually produced a pretty good country. I long ago lost interest in those who want to tinker with our democratic machine by trashing it and bringing in something new and unproven. You come across as a zealot, and zealots have never done very well in Canada.

[CAMP]

CAMP,

Say what you like about our governments, they actually produced a pretty good country. I long ago lost interest in those who want to tinker with our democratic machine by trashing it and bringing in something new and unproven. You come across as a zealot, and zealots have never done very well in Canada.

While Michael I'm not one to name call so I'll pass on that, however you are an exact replica of many in Canada who have lost interest in making Canada an even better place. I never said Canada was a bad country. What I say is Canada can be improved. Each decade our government is faced with various scandals that cost us large $ . Our democracy has been up to the last few federal elections basically a 4 year dictatorship. Provincially it still is in Ontario and most other provinces. A true democracy has input at all times from all citizens.

That's what I want. Then I wouldn't be forced to bail out GM or have my soldiers off to war with out first having the majority of citizens decide on these issues, instead of a few men and even fewer women in the upper echelons of a party (s) I'm also very tired of partisan politics, the in fighting and power struggles, attack ads etc.

We need to raise the bar on politics in Canada not keep it at it's all time low.

Recognition of the fact that our government is able to be easily corrupted on a regular basis is obvious.

You can choose to stick your head in the sand and carry on, but I am not so docile.

[Michael Hardner]

CAMP

While Michael I'm not one to name call so I'll pass on that, however you are an exact replica of many in Canada who have lost interest in making Canada an even better place. I never said Canada was a bad country. What I say is Canada can be improved. Each decade our government is faced with various scandals that cost us large $ . Our democracy has been up to the last few federal elections basically a 4 year dictatorship. Provincially it still is in Ontario and most other provinces. A true democracy has input at all times from all citizens.

That's what I want. Then I wouldn't be forced to bail out GM or have my soldiers off to war with out first having the majority of citizens decide on these issues, instead of a few men and even fewer women in the upper echelons of a party (s) I'm also very tired of partisan politics, the in fighting and power struggles, attack ads etc.

We need to raise the bar on politics in Canada not keep it at it's all time low.

Recognition of the fact that our government is able to be easily corrupted on a regular basis is obvious.

You can choose to stick your head in the sand and carry on, but I am not so docile.

Quite the contrary, CAMP. I'm interested in making Canada a much better place. The problem, though, is that the time isn't right for big political discussions. The time is now for discussions about management: management of those services that we all agree make Canada livable. Issue-by-issue voting won't address that problem, nor will allowing internet voting.

You're upset that you had to bail out GM, or go to Afghanistan, yet these ideas were supported by (I believe) a majority of Canadians. You can rest assured that the major parties know that. So, it's not like this 'dictatorship' as you call it doesn't listen to the will of the people.

It sounds like your weariness with party politics and attack ads is really about being tired of television being the dominant medium of politics. While the internet is changing that, slowly, it's unclear whether cynical politicking will go away. Television panders, which is the problem. And your idea of putting the voting booth right beside the sofa is an extension of that pandering IMO.

[Sir Bandelot]

There is no connection between improving the ease of voting, and elimination of partisan politics. Regardless of the methods used for voting in elections or referendums, scandals and abuses of power will continue. Neither is it always a good idea to put every issue to referendum where the general public is not well informed, or where there is no other option due to treaty obligations.

Most people do not have a political consciousness, simply because they don't have time to keep up on the complexities of every issue, between working full time and taking care of a home, raising the family. In many cases they will either vote on their "gut instincts", or which candidate has a nicer smile, or listen to advertisements created by the parties, in 30 second sound bites. IE. propaganda that excludes the important details. This will be true whether we use the TV or internet. So where does that leave you? Nowhere else.

[CAMP]

CAMP

Quite the contrary, CAMP. I'm interested in making Canada a much better place. The problem, though, is that the time isn't right for big political discussions. The time is now for discussions about management: management of those services that we all agree make Canada livable. Issue-by-issue voting won't address that problem, nor will allowing internet voting.

You're upset that you had to bail out GM, or go to Afghanistan, yet these ideas were supported by (I believe) a majority of Canadians. You can rest assured that the major parties know that. So, it's not like this 'dictatorship' as you call it doesn't listen to the will of the people.

It sounds like your weariness with party politics and attack ads is really about being tired of television being the dominant medium of politics. While the internet is changing that, slowly, it's unclear whether cynical politicking will go away. Television panders, which is the problem. And your idea of putting the voting booth right beside the sofa is an extension of that pandering IMO.

While Micheal you seem to be running around in circles now. First you have lost interest now you want to discuss.

Tell it like it is Micheal, we do absolutely live in a 4 (four) yes 4 remember 4 year dictatorship, unless we have a minority government at whatever level. At least we get to boot them out approx every 4 years. But then we just put in another one. Thankfully we have had two minority governments federally or Harper would probably still be denying we are in a recession.

Do you not realize that bailing out GM has spent the bank dry and we will be passing on this debt to our sons and daughters and grandchildren. This will become evident as time progresses and our health system as well as other social systems disappear. So you believe that the majority wanted to bail out GM ? I don't believe that one to be true. The only way you'd ever know is to put it to a vote or poll etc. same for Afghanistan or any other big issue our government rams down our throats. I'm just glad I can stand up and say ... I'm actually attempting to change the political make up of Canada for the better instead of just meandering along like a drone. Change for the better is good and Canada needs it.

[Michael Hardner]

Sir B,

This will be true whether we use the TV or internet. So where does that leave you? Nowhere else.

But we did have a different situation in the past, when there were more barriers to participation in politics. We also had a different situation when media focused more on the issues than on personalities.

The trend away from fact-based political engagement needs to be reversed. I would say that we can help that by not making it easier for the disengaged to merely drop in and vote on their gut feeling.

[CAMP]

Sir B,

But we did have a different situation in the past, when there were more barriers to participation in politics. We also had a different situation when media focused more on the issues than on personalities.

The trend away from fact-based political engagement needs to be reversed. I would say that we can help that by not making it easier for the disengaged to merely drop in and vote on their gut feeling.

The more people that get involved in the participation the closer to true democracy you become.

[Michael Hardner]

CAMP

Tell it like it is Micheal, we do absolutely live in a 4 (four) yes 4 remember 4 year dictatorship, unless we have a minority government at whatever level. At least we get to boot them out approx every 4 years. But then we just put in another one. Thankfully we have had two minority governments federally or Harper would probably still be denying we are in a recession.

Using hyperbole and calling Canada a dictatorship indicates that you are not dealing in facts, but in your imagination.

My advice is that you're not going to win enough people over by telling them that we're in a dictatorship. Sane voters are likely to be turned off by that kind of zealotry. ( That's not name calling, it's just a fact. )

Do you not realize that bailing out GM has spent the bank dry and we will be passing on this debt to our sons and daughters and grandchildren. This will become evident as time progresses and our health system as well as other social systems disappear. So you believe that the majority wanted to bail out GM ? I don't believe that one to be true. The only way you'd ever know is to put it to a vote or poll etc. same for Afghanistan or any other big issue our government rams down our throats. I'm just glad I can stand up and say ... I'm actually attempting to change the political make up of Canada for the better instead of just meandering along like a drone. Change for the better is good and Canada needs it.

Yes, CRAMP, you're attempting to change Canada, but in doing so you're really indulging a pipe dream rather than working towards real solutions.

Afghanistan is supported by a slim majority of Canadians, and - I stand corrected - I found that a majority of Canadians think the GM bailout is a bad idea. However, I still think that direct democracy doesn't work with these complex issues.

The oft-cited example is the two-part question:

1) Do you want more govt services yes/no ?

2) Do you want to reduce taxes by 50% yes/no ?

What happens when the majority answers yes to both of these questions ? Government is about governing, and leading, which we still need in the world today.

[CAMP]

CAMP

Using hyperbole and calling Canada a dictatorship indicates that you are not dealing in facts, but in your imagination.

My advice is that you're not going to win enough people over by telling them that we're in a dictatorship. Sane voters are likely to be turned off by that kind of zealotry. ( That's not name calling, it's just a fact. )

Yes, CRAMP, you're attempting to change Canada, but in doing so you're really indulging a pipe dream rather than working to wards real solutions.

Afghanistan is supported by a slim majority of Canadians, and - I stand corrected - I found that a majority of Canadians think the GM bailout is a bad idea. However, I still think that direct democracy doesn't work with these complex issues.

The oft-cited example is the two-part question:

1) Do you want more govt services yes/no ?

2) Do you want to reduce taxes by 50% yes/no ?

What happens when the majority answers yes to both of these questions ? Government is about governing, and leading, which we still need in the world today.

You are generalizing with your pseudo questions and wouldn't be relevant.

The Democracy I am talking about is all Canadians having input on the large issues such as Afghanistan or GM those should be a referendum item.

For all other issues the government would still be running the same as it has but when a vote is to be held in the house of commons, I believe each individual riding could be polled as to how they would want their MP to vote instead of being told by a party boss. Then make the poll public before the MP votes so he/she knows how their constituents feel. Let them enter the house and vote, and then make that public also. Then you're creating a feedback method to expose an MP who is going against his riding. The party I'm involved with believes in the principle of having all MP's first responsible to their ridings.

That's way better democracy than we currently have.

[Michael Hardner]

CAMP

You are generalizing with your pseudo questions and wouldn't be relevant.

The Democracy I am talking about is all Canadians having input on the large issues such as Afghanistan or GM those should be a referendum item.

Canadians actually do have input on these issues.

They vote for parties in power, they communicate with their MPs and ministers, and they contribute through media and the sitting government listens.

Again, to say that they don't have input is extreme.

For all other issues the government would still be running the same as it has but when a vote is to be held in the house of commons, I believe each individual riding could be polled as to how they would want their MP to vote instead of being told by a party boss. Then make the poll public before the MP votes so he/she knows how their constituents feel. Let them enter the house and vote, and then make that public also. Then you're creating a feedback method to expose an MP who is going against his riding. The party I'm involved with believes in the principle of having all MP's first responsible to their ridings.

That's way better democracy than we currently have.

Your idea is a wholesale change in how things are done. It may make things better or may ruin the good things we have now - it's guesswork as to what would happen. And the question remains - why do it ?

You say it's because we have a dictatorship. Fair enough, but you should remain proudly on the fringe with that stance.

[CAMP]

CAMP

Canadians actually do have input on these issues.

They vote for parties in power, they communicate with their MPs and ministers, and they contribute through media and the sitting government listens.

Again, to say that they don't have input is extreme.

Your idea is a wholesale change in how things are done. It may make things better or may ruin the good things we have now - it's guesswork as to what would happen. And the question remains - why do it ?

You say it's because we have a dictatorship. Fair enough, but you should remain proudly on the fringe with that stance.

You can down play it as a wholesale change if you want. It certainly will make things better for regular Canadians

The guesswork is only who we now should vote for because we have little to no defined choice as to what the next power center will do in any given situation.

There is no question as to why do it. Simply because I care about Canada and my future generations who will be stuck with the ramifications of decisions being made today.

[Michael Hardner]

CAMP

You can down play it as a wholesale change if you want. It certainly will make things better for regular Canadians

I meant to up-play it. It's a huge makeover to how our democracy works.

Your certainty about the positive result is a guess at best.

The guesswork is only who we now should vote for because we have little to no defined choice as to what the next power center will do in any given situation.

There is no question as to why do it. Simply because I care about Canada and my future generations who will be stuck with the ramifications of decisions being made today.

I care about Canada too, which is why I'm on here shooting down your idea with guns-a-blazing.

[CAMP]

CAMP

I meant to up-play it. It's a huge makeover to how our democracy works.

Your certainty about the positive result is a guess at best.

I care about Canada too, which is why I'm on here shooting down your idea with guns-a-blazing.

Didn't you know anyone in a party is bulletproof....lol

[Michael Hardner]

is CAMP your party ?

[CAMP]

is CAMP your party ?

I am a member of what was the CAMP party now known as the Central Party of Canada. Long story but we had to change the name twice now mainly because of Elections Canada. We have members who are across Canada organizing. We meet once a week or two using online conference software. We are at www.canadian-alternative.com. Online voting is just one very important part of our philosophy. We are a party that would require an MP to be responsible to their riding rather than a party boss. (Assured Autonomy) and we also want to have regular Canadians able to direct or push their MP's via polling and sometimes referendums for the big issues. Our party is a grassroots party similar to the reform party but we will not let it be taken over from the top down like they did. Our policies will assure this.

Edited July 1, 2009 by CAMP

[Michael Hardner]

I remember a grass roots party that was around 20 years ago or so... called Reform... not sure whatever happened to them...

Edited to add: Why does your website not refer to you party name ?

Edited July 1, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[CAMP]

I remember a grass roots party that was around 20 years ago or so... called Reform... not sure whatever happened to them...

Edited to add: Why does your website not refer to you party name ?

Yes I remember that one too. And we have learned from it. Our policies will not allow a top down organization of power. No way do we want this party to fall victim to a power stuggle and erase all the good work.

[Sir Bandelot]

"Central Party"

Sounds communist