6 ms·

> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the

by aazaa 7y ago

> King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology. Oh, really? > Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device. Huh? > Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ... Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before. All of this digital theater of the absurd in a desperate attempt to engage people in the political process: > The board of supervisors election in the King Conservation District, for example, in past years has drawn less than 1% of the eligible population to the ballot box. People don't vote because they don't care. Not because they can't make it to the poling place. They don't care because they don't see anything at stake. There's no app for that.

netsharc 7y ago
"Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before." Why the "while driving" bit? Your argument was solid until you added these 2 words. Now you're saying "If it doesn't work while I'm busy operating a motor vehicle, I'm against it!"
- all2 7y ago
  It is a common (though illegal) use case, so definitely worth considering as a worst case scenario.
sornaensis 7y ago
Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups! So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I do not see the purpose in, is complaining about or nay-saying these attempts. You're never going to convince someone that one vote is worth more than it is, which is what people really mean when they talk about 'engagement', because your vote on its own really just doesn't matter much and people intuitively get that. Reducing the cost of voting to match the actual value of a single vote is the best move we have IMO.
- awb 7y ago
  > People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting. I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
  - wearenotsafe 7y ago
    More importantly, we're diluting the gene pool by allowing stupid people to procreate. Let's stop this thing at the source.
  - lloyddobbler 7y ago
    This. The thing about "get out the vote" campaigns is, they're intended to draw out the least-involved, least-informed members of the electorate. Which in my book is a bad thing. Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen. Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged? Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?
  - michaelt 7y ago
    Some people believe, if a politician has $X to spend, they're more likely to spend it on things demographics with high turnout rates want than things demographics with low turnout rates want. So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old. By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs. Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.
tzs 7y ago
>> Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ... > Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before. How is "while driving" relevant? I think that even the most ardent proponent of reducing barriers to voting would find it acceptable to make it hard for people to vote while driving.
t34543 7y ago
Politics is theatre, I don’t think anything ever gets done. It just gives people a forum to complain and they can feel like they’re making a difference. Although this appears to be something local so there’s a chance it’s not entirely useless.

by aazaa 7y ago

netsharc 7y ago

"Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before." Why the "while driving" bit? Your argument was solid until you added these 2 words. Now you're saying "If it doesn't work while I'm busy operating a motor vehicle, I'm against it!"

all2 7y ago
It is a common (though illegal) use case, so definitely worth considering as a worst case scenario.

sornaensis 7y ago

Wholeheartedly disagree-- if casting a ballot was as easy as sending a text instead of receiving and then mailing a letter or going to a polling location, I would predict much higher participation. People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. Votes only matter as groups! So obviously you have to make it as braindead simple to vote as we have made everything else. What I do not see the purpose in, is complaining about or nay-saying these attempts. You're never going to convince someone that one vote is worth more than it is, which is what people really mean when they talk about 'engagement', because your vote on its own really just doesn't matter much and people intuitively get that. Reducing the cost of voting to match the actual value of a single vote is the best move we have IMO.

awb 7y ago
> People don't see it worth their time because a single vote really isn't worth anyone's time. If someone has that worldview I'm OK with them not voting. I'm not sure that X% more participation would improve our collective decision making. In essence we'd be diluting the vote of those who care the most with those who think voting by mail is too hard.
- wearenotsafe 7y ago
  More importantly, we're diluting the gene pool by allowing stupid people to procreate. Let's stop this thing at the source.
- lloyddobbler 7y ago
  This. The thing about "get out the vote" campaigns is, they're intended to draw out the least-involved, least-informed members of the electorate. Which in my book is a bad thing. Voting is not the only civic duty - educating yourself on the issues at hand is also part of that civic duty. If someone doesn't want to vote because taking the legally-mandated time off to go to the polls or fill out their mail-in ballot is "too much work," I'm not sure they're living up to their end of the bargain as a citizen. Exercising your right to vote doesn't mean you value it. Shouldn't we be asking how we can get people to value their vote enough to be engaged? Irrespective of that, haven't we already witnessed the mass security issues that come with making voting machines digital? Do we really want to subject that flawed scenario to even more flaws by putting it out on the web? Do we never learn?
- michaelt 7y ago
  Some people believe, if a politician has $X to spend, they're more likely to spend it on things demographics with high turnout rates want than things demographics with low turnout rates want. So for example, these people see the interests of people of retirement age represented much better than the interests of under-30s. They see this as part of the cause of rising college costs, and rising house prices transferring wealth from the young to the old. By this model, every non-voter that starts voting is a step towards more even -and hence more just- representation. And if you're in a demographic with a below-average voting rate, the state better serving your needs. Of course, that's a largely academic argument in the election of the board of supervisors for a conservation district, who probably don't have much influence on matters like house prices.

tzs 7y ago

>> Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. ... > Finney must have never had to sign on a phone screen with a finger while driving before. How is "while driving" relevant? I think that even the most ardent proponent of reducing barriers to voting would find it acceptable to make it hard for people to vote while driving.

t34543 7y ago

Politics is theatre, I don’t think anything ever gets done. It just gives people a forum to complain and they can feel like they’re making a difference. Although this appears to be something local so there’s a chance it’s not entirely useless.