6 ms·

Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

45 points by ukdm 15y ago

eli 15y ago
I reject the premise that the Occupy movement has very much to do with election administration. I'd bet voter apathy has more to do with the available choices on the ballot than difficulty in filling it out on time. Further, I don't think Internet voting is automatically a smart way to boost turnout. Same-day registration, early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting are simple and cheap ways to make voting much easier without introducing a bunch of new security problems or dealing with unequal access to computers and the Internet.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  dealing with unequal access to computers and the Internet. How is that a problem when most public libraries provide free access, and traditional early and on-time voting are still available?
  - eli 15y ago
    This is not the biggest challenge to Internet voting, but surely you agree that it's unfair that some people would now be able to vote from home while others would not? At least around me, you might wait an hour for a computer at the library during busy times. If the point is to let people vote from home at their leisure, why not just mail everyone an absentee ballot?
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      First let me state that I'm arguing from an assumption that technology, when not obviously bad, is inherently good, and that increasing the use of technology is a worthy goal in itself. So in my case, the point isn't just to vote from home, but to vote from anywhere using technology. I don't believe that it's necessary to share this philosophy, however, to want to see online voting become a reality. Obviously there are security and coercion concerns that are more detrimental to Internet voting's prospects than the class division aspects. And an absentee ballot sounds reasonable, but is not nearly as convenient as online voting (and has more potential for fraud and coercion than online voting). My main point is that I believe class disparity is a weak argument against online voting. I don't like using postal mail or waiting in line for an hour or more at the ballot box -- does that mean that it's unfair not to let me vote from home or the library? At least in the US, with libraries, cheap DSL, and cell phones, the vast, vast majority of people not currently voting have easier access to the Internet than they do to polling stations on election day. Don't deny most people a benefit because a few people can't enjoy it.
Strilanc 15y ago
Internet voting is a bad idea. It's vulnerable to coercion. Even if we can guarantee the votes are submitted and counted accurately, it's impossible to tell if my boss was standing behind me telling me what to vote (or lose my job). At a polling station they prevent coercion by enforcing secrecy. One person in a voting booth at a time, no cameras in the voting booth, etc. If you can't prove you voted either way, you're free to lie about how you voted.
- rfugger 15y ago
  I agree. It is a legitimate question, though, to ask whether the benefits of internet voting outweigh the increased opportunity for coercion. No internet voting advocates seem to be addressing that question, though, which makes me think that it is premature to be rolling out these kinds of systems.
- mrsebastian 15y ago
  That's a very, very good point. I don't even see an easy workaround, either... Hrm...
  - bdr 15y ago
    What about letting people change their vote?
    - sgolestane 15y ago
      In Estonia voters can change their e-votes an unlimited number of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#Overview_of_Estonian_Internet_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#Ov...
    - shasta 15y ago
      You'd also need to let people arrange to vote and then later cast a fake vote, for the case of coercion at the voting deadline And that only works if the upcoming coercion is known in advance.
stfu 15y ago
Not sure about if this is such a good idea. The writer comes from a point where everyone is active on the internet in some form or another. But in fact only about 72% actually were "connected" as of October 2010. The same logic would declare surveys on the internet as representative of the society - and we have seen over and over again that these are often quite different to "reality". The idea would therefore favor those views popular among an internet crowd by lowering the access barrier towards this group as much as possible. Historically American elections have been putting certain hurdles in place that aim not to generate the biggest turnout possible, but a turnout of those who are really interested in the subject (i.e. the preregistration in some states etc). But this is another discussion.
hahaonlysirius 15y ago
This could be huge if voting could magically change the fact that the fundamental principles of state rule are unethical and contradictory.
splat 15y ago
While internet voting could perhaps help, I think a much simpler and more powerful change would be to switch to a Condorcet method of voting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting) Nothing would do more damage to the two-party system than for the argument "if you vote for a third party, you throw your vote away" to be demolished.
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  Instant-runoff voting would probably be more practical. It's already used in America in some jurisdictions, so promoting it to the more major offices like President isn't as big a leap as Condorcet (since Condorcet's not actually used by any US jurisdictions).
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    Also, instant-runoff is easier to explain, because it's literally the same as holding hypothetical runoff elections on election day. With Concordet voting, listing someone as your second choice can cause your first choice to lose, which would probably confuse a lot of people.
    - bradbeattie 15y ago
      It would be misleading to gloss over IRV's significant failings if we're talking about criteria failure. * 8 people vote: A, C, B * 5 people vote: B, C, A * 4 people vote: C, B, A IRV eliminates C, despite the majority of voters preferring C over B (12 to 5). The order of elimination means that significant secondary preferences are often ignored.
      - eli 15y ago
        Sure, but you really should not underestimate how important it is that everyone understand how their vote is counted. I had a roommate who worked for a voting reform nonprofit and he said even gathering signatures for "simple" IRV is quite challenging. It's just too hard to explain quickly.
zanny 15y ago
Internet voting is the eventual future, but like has been said, the lack of representational elections and the broken two party system are why people are disinterested, not because they have to go to a local school and fill out a piece of paper. Introducing online voting should be pursued as an option, just like early voting is. But we should not even think of making it a standard for a long time, because not everyone has internet access. And many people with internet access still wouldn't know how to go to vote.gov and fill in a form.
maresca 15y ago
If you were to give everyone off from work for voting day on the contingency that they voted, most people still wouldn't vote. Voting in the United States should be compulsory like it is in Australia. A central location that would let people vote on bills would serve as a check on politicians votes. As for the problem with not everyone having access to computers/smart phones, why not replace phone booths with electronic voting booths?
wedesoft 15y ago
With the Internet it is possible to involve the public much more than just with online elections. The FSF for example uses a website where people can comment on each draft of a license [1]. [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
muuh-gnu 15y ago
Whether all people go voting or not is irrelevant as long as they only can vote for so called "representatives" who then make all the important decisions. It is more important to implement unfiltered direct democracy first. I want to vote on some stuff directly and let somebody else vote for me on stuff i dont care about. Thinking hard about changing _how_ to vote without changing _what_ you are allowed to vote on is a waste of time. As long as I can not vote on stuff directly, I dont care for elections at all. All parties are the same, all representatives sooner or later become corrupt. The game is rigged in favor of people with money & influence, elections are a lie.
- Aloisius 15y ago
  Oh yes, because all the direct democracy systems that have been created have worked so well. You know what's worse than voting for representatives? Voting directly on dozens of bills that are so complicated that, unless you don't have a full time job, you have to rely on a bunch of summaries written by biased parties to interpret. My favorite trick which happened in my city is having two bills that look nearly identical, except one looks better (more savings, more jobs, more whatever), but is actually illegal and will inevitably be struck down by the courts. The illegal one has a supersede clause in it so that if both are voted in, it undos the other, but since it'll be struck down for being illegal, nothing will actually change. As someone whose state, city and county have implemented direct democracy, I can tell you it sucks. I'd rather have no laws passed then them passed directly via an uninformed electorate.
  - alttag 15y ago
    Amen. As a former elected official, few things in government would scare me more than direct democracy subject to the whim of media campaigns and sound bytes. In my best Tommy Lee Jones voice: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Or maybe the line attributed to Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a 10-minute conversation with the average voter."
  - zokier 15y ago
    "I want to vote on some stuff directly and let somebody else vote for me on stuff i dont care about." (emphasis mine) The key for successful direct democracy is encouraging delegation of decision making.
JonnieCache 15y ago
Internet voting is untenable from a security perspective. An election is orders of magnitude more complicated than most online transactions, because your vote is just as important to me as my vote. Whereas filing your taxes online is a one way transaction between you and the government, voting is one big symmetrical transaction between every member of the electorate. This makes it really tricky from a security perspective. The reason that internet voting is worse than postal voting is the slowness of messing around with paper, the same reason which people tout as a positive. You cant change a million postal votes in a under millisecond from thousands of miles away. Think of the postal service as hash iteration. For (lots) more info, see the following Google tech talk, "Electronic and Internet Voting (The Threat of Internet Voting in Public Elections)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjmRwfkRXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjmRwfkRXY
- eli 15y ago
  It's MUCH more difficult than banking or taxes. Not only must your vote be secure and counted; it must be anonymous! Not even you should be able to prove to anyone else who you voted for and there must be no audit trail that could tie an individual vote to a person.
  - NinetyNine 15y ago
    Doesn't bitcoin solve this problem?
    - AceJohnny2 15y ago
      No, bitcoin is "pseudonymous", transactions are public. It's not necessarily easily linked to your real identity (hence the pseudonymity), but with today's profiling tech, is that any guarantee?
    - mhansen 15y ago
      No, bitcoin has an unencrypted audit trail.
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
cafard 15y ago
Just what the 1% needs to masquerade as the 99% (or, why be greedy, the 51%).
hisabness 15y ago
do people here actually believe the current system isn't rigged? does anyone believe an internet based system wouldn't be rigged?
- sirclueless 15y ago
  Rigged how? I'm fairly certain that a centralized homogeneous voting system would be significantly easier to audit for security loopholes than the current implementation, but if there were a security breach one would imagine it would be far more disastrous.

45 points by ukdm 15y ago

eli 15y ago

I reject the premise that the Occupy movement has very much to do with election administration. I'd bet voter apathy has more to do with the available choices on the ballot than difficulty in filling it out on time. Further, I don't think Internet voting is automatically a smart way to boost turnout. Same-day registration, early voting, and no-excuse absentee voting are simple and cheap ways to make voting much easier without introducing a bunch of new security problems or dealing with unequal access to computers and the Internet.

nitrogen 15y ago
dealing with unequal access to computers and the Internet. How is that a problem when most public libraries provide free access, and traditional early and on-time voting are still available?
- eli 15y ago
  This is not the biggest challenge to Internet voting, but surely you agree that it's unfair that some people would now be able to vote from home while others would not? At least around me, you might wait an hour for a computer at the library during busy times. If the point is to let people vote from home at their leisure, why not just mail everyone an absentee ballot?
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    First let me state that I'm arguing from an assumption that technology, when not obviously bad, is inherently good, and that increasing the use of technology is a worthy goal in itself. So in my case, the point isn't just to vote from home, but to vote from anywhere using technology. I don't believe that it's necessary to share this philosophy, however, to want to see online voting become a reality. Obviously there are security and coercion concerns that are more detrimental to Internet voting's prospects than the class division aspects. And an absentee ballot sounds reasonable, but is not nearly as convenient as online voting (and has more potential for fraud and coercion than online voting). My main point is that I believe class disparity is a weak argument against online voting. I don't like using postal mail or waiting in line for an hour or more at the ballot box -- does that mean that it's unfair not to let me vote from home or the library? At least in the US, with libraries, cheap DSL, and cell phones, the vast, vast majority of people not currently voting have easier access to the Internet than they do to polling stations on election day. Don't deny most people a benefit because a few people can't enjoy it.

Strilanc 15y ago

Internet voting is a bad idea. It's vulnerable to coercion. Even if we can guarantee the votes are submitted and counted accurately, it's impossible to tell if my boss was standing behind me telling me what to vote (or lose my job). At a polling station they prevent coercion by enforcing secrecy. One person in a voting booth at a time, no cameras in the voting booth, etc. If you can't prove you voted either way, you're free to lie about how you voted.

rfugger 15y ago
I agree. It is a legitimate question, though, to ask whether the benefits of internet voting outweigh the increased opportunity for coercion. No internet voting advocates seem to be addressing that question, though, which makes me think that it is premature to be rolling out these kinds of systems.
mrsebastian 15y ago
That's a very, very good point. I don't even see an easy workaround, either... Hrm...
- bdr 15y ago
  What about letting people change their vote?
  - sgolestane 15y ago
    In Estonia voters can change their e-votes an unlimited number of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#Overview_of_Estonian_Internet_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#Ov...
  - shasta 15y ago
    You'd also need to let people arrange to vote and then later cast a fake vote, for the case of coercion at the voting deadline And that only works if the upcoming coercion is known in advance.

stfu 15y ago

Not sure about if this is such a good idea. The writer comes from a point where everyone is active on the internet in some form or another. But in fact only about 72% actually were "connected" as of October 2010. The same logic would declare surveys on the internet as representative of the society - and we have seen over and over again that these are often quite different to "reality". The idea would therefore favor those views popular among an internet crowd by lowering the access barrier towards this group as much as possible. Historically American elections have been putting certain hurdles in place that aim not to generate the biggest turnout possible, but a turnout of those who are really interested in the subject (i.e. the preregistration in some states etc). But this is another discussion.

hahaonlysirius 15y ago

This could be huge if voting could magically change the fact that the fundamental principles of state rule are unethical and contradictory.

splat 15y ago

While internet voting could perhaps help, I think a much simpler and more powerful change would be to switch to a Condorcet method of voting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_voting) Nothing would do more damage to the two-party system than for the argument "if you vote for a third party, you throw your vote away" to be demolished.

LeafStorm 15y ago
Instant-runoff voting would probably be more practical. It's already used in America in some jurisdictions, so promoting it to the more major offices like President isn't as big a leap as Condorcet (since Condorcet's not actually used by any US jurisdictions).
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  Also, instant-runoff is easier to explain, because it's literally the same as holding hypothetical runoff elections on election day. With Concordet voting, listing someone as your second choice can cause your first choice to lose, which would probably confuse a lot of people.
  - bradbeattie 15y ago
    It would be misleading to gloss over IRV's significant failings if we're talking about criteria failure. * 8 people vote: A, C, B * 5 people vote: B, C, A * 4 people vote: C, B, A IRV eliminates C, despite the majority of voters preferring C over B (12 to 5). The order of elimination means that significant secondary preferences are often ignored.
    - eli 15y ago
      Sure, but you really should not underestimate how important it is that everyone understand how their vote is counted. I had a roommate who worked for a voting reform nonprofit and he said even gathering signatures for "simple" IRV is quite challenging. It's just too hard to explain quickly.

zanny 15y ago

Internet voting is the eventual future, but like has been said, the lack of representational elections and the broken two party system are why people are disinterested, not because they have to go to a local school and fill out a piece of paper. Introducing online voting should be pursued as an option, just like early voting is. But we should not even think of making it a standard for a long time, because not everyone has internet access. And many people with internet access still wouldn't know how to go to vote.gov and fill in a form.

maresca 15y ago

If you were to give everyone off from work for voting day on the contingency that they voted, most people still wouldn't vote. Voting in the United States should be compulsory like it is in Australia. A central location that would let people vote on bills would serve as a check on politicians votes. As for the problem with not everyone having access to computers/smart phones, why not replace phone booths with electronic voting booths?

wedesoft 15y ago

With the Internet it is possible to involve the public much more than just with online elections. The FSF for example uses a website where people can comment on each draft of a license [1]. [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html http://gplv3.fsf.org/comment/agplv3-draft-2.html

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

muuh-gnu 15y ago

Whether all people go voting or not is irrelevant as long as they only can vote for so called "representatives" who then make all the important decisions. It is more important to implement unfiltered direct democracy first. I want to vote on some stuff directly and let somebody else vote for me on stuff i dont care about. Thinking hard about changing _how_ to vote without changing _what_ you are allowed to vote on is a waste of time. As long as I can not vote on stuff directly, I dont care for elections at all. All parties are the same, all representatives sooner or later become corrupt. The game is rigged in favor of people with money & influence, elections are a lie.

Aloisius 15y ago
Oh yes, because all the direct democracy systems that have been created have worked so well. You know what's worse than voting for representatives? Voting directly on dozens of bills that are so complicated that, unless you don't have a full time job, you have to rely on a bunch of summaries written by biased parties to interpret. My favorite trick which happened in my city is having two bills that look nearly identical, except one looks better (more savings, more jobs, more whatever), but is actually illegal and will inevitably be struck down by the courts. The illegal one has a supersede clause in it so that if both are voted in, it undos the other, but since it'll be struck down for being illegal, nothing will actually change. As someone whose state, city and county have implemented direct democracy, I can tell you it sucks. I'd rather have no laws passed then them passed directly via an uninformed electorate.
- alttag 15y ago
  Amen. As a former elected official, few things in government would scare me more than direct democracy subject to the whim of media campaigns and sound bytes. In my best Tommy Lee Jones voice: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Or maybe the line attributed to Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a 10-minute conversation with the average voter."
- zokier 15y ago
  "I want to vote on some stuff directly and let somebody else vote for me on stuff i dont care about." (emphasis mine) The key for successful direct democracy is encouraging delegation of decision making.

JonnieCache 15y ago

Internet voting is untenable from a security perspective. An election is orders of magnitude more complicated than most online transactions, because your vote is just as important to me as my vote. Whereas filing your taxes online is a one way transaction between you and the government, voting is one big symmetrical transaction between every member of the electorate. This makes it really tricky from a security perspective. The reason that internet voting is worse than postal voting is the slowness of messing around with paper, the same reason which people tout as a positive. You cant change a million postal votes in a under millisecond from thousands of miles away. Think of the postal service as hash iteration. For (lots) more info, see the following Google tech talk, "Electronic and Internet Voting (The Threat of Internet Voting in Public Elections)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjmRwfkRXY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjmRwfkRXY

eli 15y ago
It's MUCH more difficult than banking or taxes. Not only must your vote be secure and counted; it must be anonymous! Not even you should be able to prove to anyone else who you voted for and there must be no audit trail that could tie an individual vote to a person.
- NinetyNine 15y ago
  Doesn't bitcoin solve this problem?
  - AceJohnny2 15y ago
    No, bitcoin is "pseudonymous", transactions are public. It's not necessarily easily linked to your real identity (hence the pseudonymity), but with today's profiling tech, is that any guarantee?
  - mhansen 15y ago
    No, bitcoin has an unencrypted audit trail.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago

cafard 15y ago

Just what the 1% needs to masquerade as the 99% (or, why be greedy, the 51%).

hisabness 15y ago

do people here actually believe the current system isn't rigged? does anyone believe an internet based system wouldn't be rigged?

sirclueless 15y ago
Rigged how? I'm fairly certain that a centralized homogeneous voting system would be significantly easier to audit for security loopholes than the current implementation, but if there were a security breach one would imagine it would be far more disastrous.