6 ms·

> We do things similar to online voting all the time. Name one. The huge difference between voting and all the other transactions online is that the ballot is

> We do things similar to online voting all the time. Name one. The huge difference between voting and all the other transactions online is that the ballot is supposed to be secret. A lot of security online relies on review. That's largely how credit card fraud is being dealt with. The other reason, why voting online or in any sort of electronic way is less secure and difficult to be made secure, is that electronic exploits scale well. Anyone can write a fake ballot but it's very difficult to do in numbers that can actually sway the elections. Once you break the electronic voting scheme, you can change thousands of votes at a time.

shawn-butler 14y ago
I brought this up in a thread on election day. Unless I'm very misinformed there is no requirements in federal or state law of which I am aware that requires a secret ballot. It is more important to have a verifiable result than an anonymous one. Both would be optimal but introduces complexity. If donors to political campaigns cannot be anonymous for amounts exceeding some small value like $50 to promote transparency, seems trivial to ditch the tradition of secret ballot to promote participation.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for. I'm not as worried about the mob showing up and telling me 'vote this way or Jimmy here will say hi', but instead "candidate X will benefit your job. We're not sure you'll have your position if he's not voted in"
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    There have been a few high-profile reports in this election cycle of people threatening layoffs with a secret ballot. They tinge it with, if these policies are enacted we will cut hours, not hire, etc to hedge. The Papa Johns CEO was fairly candid, I also think I read of a coal mine announcing layoffs the day after the election, etc. I'm fairly certain it is a violation of most state civil right laws and probably explicit state constitutional guarantees to discriminate in employment on the basis of political affiliation just as it is race, gender, etc. I know it is in the state in which I reside. So I think this is a red-herring.
    - makomk 14y ago
      The mere fact of it being illegal didn't stop it from happening...
      - shawn-butler 14y ago
        The salient point being that having a "secret" ballot has not stopped it from happening either. My employer can easily verify if they choose if I have donated to the "correct" candidate already and rampant job discrimination seems not to occur in a significant amount. So, one has to balance the risk of someone acting illegally in either case to discriminate against/coerce versus the increase in voter participation that would naturally occur in having online voting that was verifiable. I think it's an easy case to make, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.
RollAHardSix 14y ago
'the ballot is supposed to be secret' I'd give up my secrecy for the convenience of casting my vote online. If I had friends that would judge me for my political beliefs...well, they wouldn't be my friends very long anyways. :) This isn't the roaring 20's; Mobsters aren't going to come lean-on me to sway my vote. I will however, call the police on any who do. But in all reality, give my IP Address/Identifiable information to the government to be able to cast my vote online? Yes. In a heartbeat yes. The NSA & CIA probably already have everything on me anyway. Young, home-owner, broke as shit just like the rest of the country, average job, average family, average affiliations, I'm a boring dude-nothing to worry about. I do agree about security though, some big players would pay to have the election cracked...and the real stink is all it would take is a politician complaining about a suspected malfunction and the entire online process is review'd for WEEKS. Messy, but I'd still vote online if it was available.
- icegreentea 14y ago
  I think you hit it on the head. You are a perfectly down the middle, average, American. You have time to read and post on HackerNews. You are almost certainly not in the population to which the secret ballet is most beneficial. The moment a non-secret ballet becomes a large-scale option, then the most vulnerable will be targetted. One there is a way to confirm that someone infact did vote the way you wanted, then you're good to go buying the votes of those desperate enough. You might be 'broke as shit', but you're also average, which means you're not -really- broke as shit.
  - RollAHardSix 14y ago
    I understand yours and Lukifer's point of view except 'buying votes' is already being done. We have billion of dollars at play into the elections. We have history on top of history to know which districts vote which way and we target the swing states to help decide the outcome of the election. Sure the money is going into mass mailing marketing campaigns, TV ads, community support, but it's the same result. Everyone talks about buying votes but does anyone have any concrete examples? (Not saying it doesn't happen, simply that I don't have any good examples to learn from atm.) All I'm getting back from Google are accusations against Obama (no surprise given the recent election) and a mention from Wikipedia about Vote Buying in 'ye old England'. I'd do a more detailed search except it's late and I'm off to bed. This discussion is getting interesting.

shawn-butler 14y ago

I brought this up in a thread on election day. Unless I'm very misinformed there is no requirements in federal or state law of which I am aware that requires a secret ballot. It is more important to have a verifiable result than an anonymous one. Both would be optimal but introduces complexity. If donors to political campaigns cannot be anonymous for amounts exceeding some small value like $50 to promote transparency, seems trivial to ditch the tradition of secret ballot to promote participation.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
A lack of secret ballot could easily be challenged by businesses that threaten or have 'layoffs' for those candidates or positions that workers vote for. I'm not as worried about the mob showing up and telling me 'vote this way or Jimmy here will say hi', but instead "candidate X will benefit your job. We're not sure you'll have your position if he's not voted in"
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  There have been a few high-profile reports in this election cycle of people threatening layoffs with a secret ballot. They tinge it with, if these policies are enacted we will cut hours, not hire, etc to hedge. The Papa Johns CEO was fairly candid, I also think I read of a coal mine announcing layoffs the day after the election, etc. I'm fairly certain it is a violation of most state civil right laws and probably explicit state constitutional guarantees to discriminate in employment on the basis of political affiliation just as it is race, gender, etc. I know it is in the state in which I reside. So I think this is a red-herring.
  - makomk 14y ago
    The mere fact of it being illegal didn't stop it from happening...
    - shawn-butler 14y ago
      The salient point being that having a "secret" ballot has not stopped it from happening either. My employer can easily verify if they choose if I have donated to the "correct" candidate already and rampant job discrimination seems not to occur in a significant amount. So, one has to balance the risk of someone acting illegally in either case to discriminate against/coerce versus the increase in voter participation that would naturally occur in having online voting that was verifiable. I think it's an easy case to make, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

RollAHardSix 14y ago

'the ballot is supposed to be secret' I'd give up my secrecy for the convenience of casting my vote online. If I had friends that would judge me for my political beliefs...well, they wouldn't be my friends very long anyways. :) This isn't the roaring 20's; Mobsters aren't going to come lean-on me to sway my vote. I will however, call the police on any who do. But in all reality, give my IP Address/Identifiable information to the government to be able to cast my vote online? Yes. In a heartbeat yes. The NSA & CIA probably already have everything on me anyway. Young, home-owner, broke as shit just like the rest of the country, average job, average family, average affiliations, I'm a boring dude-nothing to worry about. I do agree about security though, some big players would pay to have the election cracked...and the real stink is all it would take is a politician complaining about a suspected malfunction and the entire online process is review'd for WEEKS. Messy, but I'd still vote online if it was available.

icegreentea 14y ago
I think you hit it on the head. You are a perfectly down the middle, average, American. You have time to read and post on HackerNews. You are almost certainly not in the population to which the secret ballet is most beneficial. The moment a non-secret ballet becomes a large-scale option, then the most vulnerable will be targetted. One there is a way to confirm that someone infact did vote the way you wanted, then you're good to go buying the votes of those desperate enough. You might be 'broke as shit', but you're also average, which means you're not -really- broke as shit.
- RollAHardSix 14y ago
  I understand yours and Lukifer's point of view except 'buying votes' is already being done. We have billion of dollars at play into the elections. We have history on top of history to know which districts vote which way and we target the swing states to help decide the outcome of the election. Sure the money is going into mass mailing marketing campaigns, TV ads, community support, but it's the same result. Everyone talks about buying votes but does anyone have any concrete examples? (Not saying it doesn't happen, simply that I don't have any good examples to learn from atm.) All I'm getting back from Google are accusations against Obama (no surprise given the recent election) and a mention from Wikipedia about Vote Buying in 'ye old England'. I'd do a more detailed search except it's late and I'm off to bed. This discussion is getting interesting.