Online Voting in Canada

[eyeball]

If it's safe to assume that having to show up in person to make one mark on a piece of paper deters low information voters then it stands to reason that having to make several marks on a range of issues will keep the stupid away in droves.

This should yield the sort of quality voters that could replace the low moral representatives we presently have to put up with in Parliament. I mean, amoral unethical representation is why we're all fundamentally pissed off or frustrated by the status quo isn't it?

Edited April 14, 2014 by eyeball

[Shady]

Canadian tax data breached via cyber attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/canadians-tax-data-stolen-heartbleed-breach-154056722.html;_ylt=AwrSyCVEB0xTThMAD23QtDMD

[waldo]

The biggest irony is to make online voting viable there would have to be a system of identity verification that would be much stricter than we have now or even under the Fair Elections Act. This means it would be unlikely to to bring in new voters and would simply capture the votes of people that would go to the polls if they had to.

I was rolling of the floor laughing at the hoops Estonians seem to be willing to jump though so they can vote online because they would never fly here. Yet people through these examples out as if they have some relevance to Canada.

don't be afraid to respond directly to me concerning the Estonian references I've put forward. Nice to see you're back to reading my posts again! Oh right... you just claim to have me on ignore!

don't hesitate to actually substantiate your claims - there's enough deployment of e-voting that you should be able to go rise above your personal opinion.

[eyeball]

Personal data for as many as 900 Canadian taxpayers was stolen after being made vulnerable by the "Heartbleed" bug, officials in Ottawa said on Monday.

Only 900, that's interesting. Maybe there's reason to hope this bug was unleashed by an ethical hacker who will have some very revealing beans to spill. It stands to reason they weren't hacking away at the low hanging beans.

[waldo]

anyone care to support their opinions/claims that e-voting would favour so-called "low information" voters? Does someone using the internet automatially take on this "low information" category designation? Oh wait... are we on the interweebs?

Edited April 14, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

Canadian tax data breached via cyber attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/canadians-tax-data-stolen-heartbleed-breach-154056722.html;_ylt=AwrSyCVEB0xTThMAD23QtDMD

what does this have to do with e-voting... or are you in low-information mode?

[eyeball]

anyone care to support their opinions/claims that e-voting would favour so-called "low information" voters? Does someone using the internet automatially take on this "low information" category designation? Oh wait... are we on the interweebs?

I thought it was a bunch of tubes.

[Boges]

anyone care to support their opinions/claims that e-voting would favour so-called "low information" voters? Does someone using the internet automatially take on this "low information" category designation? Oh wait... are we on the interweebs?

Well that's up for debate. If the claim is that it would increase voter turnout because going to a poll is somehow too much to ask from the voting public, then we have to ask why that is?

But then, perhaps, requiring someone to register with EC to receive proper permissions to access the website, then perhaps it would actually make the system more secure (assuming of course it would be hack proof, which is a huge question) and lessen the likelihood of fraud and Low Info Voters.

[waldo]

the Harper Conservative "Fair Elections Act"... protecting the sanctity of elections from so-called "low information" voters!

[Shady]

what does this have to do with e-voting... or are you in low-information mode?

It has to do with cyber security and the integrity of the democratic process of voting.

[waldo]

It has to do with cyber security and the integrity of the democratic process of voting.

in this most specific of cases; i.e., the 'heartbleed bug' you're now fixated on... on the broadest of levels, how would e-voting software that doesn't use open source SSL, or on the more particular level, how would e-voting software that encrpyts votes starting at the origination client device point be susceptible? You clearly don't know any of the technical facets; you've simply taken a naive position that wildly assumes any hack of anything/anywhere automatically translates into compromised e-voting system design/architecture/software/etc.. What's that? You need assurances to gain trust? Good on ya... I'll look forward to you championing the cause to have Harper Conservatives repeal the provision within their "Fair Elections Act" that currently intends to prevent/block Elections Canada from small-scale testing/trialing of e-voting.

[Shady]

in this most specific of cases; i.e., the 'heartbleed bug' you're now fixated on... on the broadest of levels, how would e-voting software that doesn't use open source SSL, or on the more particular level, how would e-voting software that encrpyts votes starting at the origination client device point be susceptible? You clearly don't know any of the technical facets; you've simply taken a naive position that wildly assumes any hack of anything/anywhere automatically translates into compromised e-voting system design/architecture/software/etc.. What's that? You need assurances to gain trust? Good on ya... I'll look forward to you championing the cause to have Harper Conservatives repeal the provision within their "Fair Elections Act" that currently intends to prevent/block Elections Canada from small-scale testing/trialing of e-voting.

Attacks could be made on each source. The source sending the vote, as well as the source receiving the vote. New and better cyber attacks are being developed constantly. Are you unaware of the breaches in security the United States has suffered by Chinese hackers, snooping into top secret US government websites? Do you think that encryted votes can't be unencrypted? Ever heard of key logging?

[waldo]

Attacks could be made on each source. The source sending the vote, as well as the source receiving the vote. New and better cyber attacks are being developed constantly. Are you unaware of the breaches in security the United States has suffered by Chinese hackers, snooping into top secret US government websites? Do you think that encryted votes can't be unencrypted?

you haven't a clue what you're talking about... but why has that ever stopped you? You clearly don't know any of the technical facets; you've simply taken a naive position that wildly assumes any hack of anything/anywhere automatically translates into compromised e-voting system design/architecture/software/etc..

Ever heard of key logging?

ever heard of keystroke encryption?

[WestCoastRunner]

Let's suppose a 20 something decides to vote online. This will engage them in the voting process and possibly, they may start to research policies, politicians etc to determine who they should vote for. I'm not sure why young people would be considered low level voters. It's insulting and doesn't give them much credit. The millenium generation are online most of the time. This is their world. They know their way around the internet and I think that online voting IMHO would engage more voters who would typically not otherwise become engaged.

I realize most people are resistant to change. I see it all the time in my profession. When online voting comes to fruition, most folks will say "Shoot, why didn't we do this a long time ago"!

[WestCoastRunner]

Less cost per vote should provide an incentive to increase the number of things we can vote for.

That's a great point! We could add something to the ballot like "should whales be held in captivity at the vancouver aquarium". But seriously, that is a good point for having online voting.

[eyeball]

That's a great point! We could add something to the ballot like "should whales be held in captivity at the vancouver aquarium". But seriously, that is a good point for having online voting.

I think it's probably one of the main reasons people who fear change are against it. Too much democracy in the hands of the people? That's probably the slipperiest slope to the end to partisan sycophancy and authority submission we'll ever see.

I'm not sure why young people would be considered low level voters. It's insulting and doesn't give them much credit.

No kidding and I'm not sure why so many assume it's mostly young people who are disengaged given they're so outnumbered by older voters and disengagement is increasing. It should be obvious where the numbers of disengaged voters are coming from, what isn't clearly or honestly understood is why.

Where some regard so-called spoiled ballots as being completely meaningless and insist they should all simply be written off others insist many may indeed be appropriately relevant given the context they're being cast in. Online voting would allow for options that might resolve this disagreement and lead to insights that help democracy evolve more naturally and with the times.

I'm left wondering what would happen in our first-past-the-post system and especially if online voting also became mandatory, what the outcome would be if a majority chose the option, none of the above?

[Michael Hardner]

Let's suppose a 20 something decides to vote online. This will engage them in the voting process and possibly, they may start to research policies, politicians etc to determine who they should vote for. I'm not sure why young people would be considered low level voters.

You yourself started the example by saying they're young, so who's not giving young people credit here ? Why wouldn't they vote at a polling station ? I know the younger generation are online most of the time. This will help them when they do their research, so they will save time there.

I'm all right with change, but the entire process of collecting information and engaging needs to be rethought - putting voting online ignores the larger problem.

[WestCoastRunner]

You yourself started the example by saying they're young, so who's not giving young people credit here ? Why wouldn't they vote at a polling station ? I know the younger generation are online most of the time. This will help them when they do their research, so they will save time there.

I'm all right with change, but the entire process of collecting information and engaging needs to be rethought - putting voting online ignores the larger problem.

I don't think anyone in this thread said that online voting will solve the larger problem. Online voting is another means to accommodate more voters and there have been links to numerous articles outlining the benefits if anyone cares to read them.

[WestCoastRunner]

No kidding and I'm not sure why so many assume it's mostly young people who are disengaged given they're so outnumbered by older voters and disengagement is increasing. It should be obvious where the numbers of disengaged voters are coming from, what isn't clearly or honestly understood is why.

And of course, young people are certainly not the only ones disengaged. I was using young people as an example of folks who do not currently vote. I'm not sure why the resistance of trying to encourage everyone to vote regardless of the method. (once of course, the security issues are addressed and I'm quite confident they will be).

[Michael Hardner]

...there have been links to numerous articles outlining the benefits if anyone cares to read them.

The links indicate that online voting is modern, and that more people vote when it's an option. No argument there, but I don't see either of those as benefits.

From Annie Hall:

"There's an old joke - um... two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." "

[WestCoastRunner]

I found this interesting:

While voters are losing interest in elections or facing difficulties in

exercising their right to vote, governments

are trying to figure out new ways to engage them in the democratic process.

● Making the voting process efficient:

○ Increasing the speed of the vote counting process

○ Minimizing delays in the publication of election results

○ Streamlining post-election audit processes

○ Eliminating duplication of voter registration records

○ Reducing ballot printing and logistics costs

Here are some benefits.

[TimG]

Here are some benefits.

I would agree that the process would be much more efficient if we went with a single universal ID + PIN for all votes (like Estonia). But this would make it much more difficult for people to get the ID necessary to vote which contradicts the argument that it would increase voter turnout.

So you really need to make up your mind. Is your objective to convince disengaged voters to vote or make the system more efficient? It is one or the other. You can't have both.

I oppose an insecure e-voting system cooked up by people looking to get more people to vote. I am not against a secure e-voting system put together by people trying to make the system more efficient. The latter would likely need a mandatory voters ID that would be as difficult to get as a getting a passport.

Edited April 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

So you really need to make up your mind. Is your objective to convince disengaged voters to vote or make the system more efficient? It is one or the other. You can't have both.

I don't believe that you can't have both.

[Shady]

I don't believe that you can't have both.

Right now you can't. Not if you want the integrity of the voting process to be secure. But that seems to not be much of a care of you people. You'd rather try to get people to vote who don't currently care for voting. And if it causes the integrity of the system to suffer, so be it.

[BubberMiley]

But that seems to not be much of a care of you people.

I'm torn on this issue because I generally feel that online systems are still too vulnerable to hackery, but I am also traditionally allied with the "you people" referenced above.