5 ms·

Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that a

Is it just me thinking that the archaic nature of the way we vote is hindering progress? I mean, we can have all these complicated websites/applications that are expected/relied upon to have utmost security (that are constantly being made better), but we still can't have the option to vote online? I know in some eastern European countries people can vote online like Estonia [0]. [0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/estonians-get-to-vote-online-why-cant-america/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/06/e...

josephlord 13y ago
Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
  - josephlord 13y ago
    If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      >Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one. Oh really?[0]: "The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results. The election was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College." With one flick of the wrist by a couple appointed judges, recounts become moot. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        I think Bush v Gore was an awful decision, but 1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design; and 2) recounts did not become moot. The decision is explicitly limited to that particular case and the holding cannot be cited in other cases. Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.
        cinquemb 13y ago
        >1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted. >2) recounts did not become moot In that instance they did. But of course, something like this can never happen again even though it happened once already. >Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore. I haven't, care to point to some information?
Peaker 13y ago
When a website is insecure or abuses your trust, you can sue them, or they lose money. They have every incentive to make the web site honest and secure. If a website steals, someone who's lost money generally knows. When a voting system is insecure and abuses your trust, someone makes tremendous gains, and nobody may even know. The incentives to rig an election are huge, and the verifiability of an online election is very low. How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress?
- cinquemb 13y ago
  >When a voting system is insecure and abuses your trust, someone makes tremendous gains, and nobody may even know. The incentives to rig an election are huge, and the verifiability of an online election is very low. Because the electronic machines in use now aren't vulnerable? >How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress? Not easily accessible to all people (like those with disabilities, and those without sufficient access to public transportation, those having to work without having the flexibility to show up to vote) and it's disconnected from the way more and more people are engaging about ideas and exchanging information that could influence how they vote. Same is true of electronic voting machines in use during elections… And it's not like people haven't documented themselves on youtube committing voting fraud in person or the news stories that pop up about it…
  - Peaker 13y ago
    The electronic machines in use now are terrible, and should be abolished. I think these drawbacks of paper ballots are minor compared to "black box voting" where there's absolutely no way to prevent or even know about massive scale frauds.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      >I think these drawbacks of paper ballots are minor compared to "black box voting" where there's absolutely no way to prevent or even know about massive scale frauds. Way to minimize the disenfranchisement millions of people from the voting process. Besides, do you really think people are going to recount millions of ballots, when the last attempt to do so was waived away by appointed judges in 2000? Even if massive scale fraud were going on, most people would stick their heads in the sand (at least in the United States), like we have seen with other issues…

josephlord 13y ago

Anonymity (to the extent of disconnection of voters from votes) is valuable in elections to prevent various forms of vote sale or coercion. This is hard or impossible to achieve online (at least while retaining reasonable protection against double voting and ineligible voters).

cinquemb 13y ago
Ok, then how about for primaries [0]? People have to register for those and provide proof in order to vote during those in a way that's not anonymous, right? But even the process that people would have to go through to even get something like that up and running would be too heavily influenced by the ever printed federal reserve notes flowing into the beltway. The way people state we can participate in the system just seems so moot when I think about it. Which is probably why I don't vote and because subversion seems to be the only thing working these days that is in the interests of the people and not just what we are told where our interests should lie… [0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5991588
- josephlord 13y ago
  If elections matter there is a strong case for anonymity. I'm not US based but as I understand it the primaries are in practice quite important but the ways they are run are highly variable and the choices of the parties (are they even constitutionally necessary or just common practice?). If they are currently not anonymous there is probably no harm in going online but I haven't fully thought it through but non-anonymous election processes are substandard anyway in my view. Outside elections seriously massive scale public protest or large scale civil disobedience and general strikes really can change things. For smaller things mass lobbying of politicians can swing a balance. Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >Edit: Actually online is still worse than a good recountable, auditable paper based system although maybe equal to a Diebold polling station based one. Oh really?[0]: "The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 United States presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, specifically the Florida results. The election was ultimately settled in favor of George W. Bush when the U.S. Supreme Court, with its final ruling on Bush v. Gore, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court, which had the effect of awarding Bush a majority of votes in the Electoral College." With one flick of the wrist by a couple appointed judges, recounts become moot. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I think Bush v Gore was an awful decision, but 1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design; and 2) recounts did not become moot. The decision is explicitly limited to that particular case and the holding cannot be cited in other cases. Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        >1) judges are appointed by elected Presidents and confirmed by Senators, in accordance with the Constitution, so their role and powers are part of the Constitutional design And as we have seen throughout history, they can grant themselves more power through amendments and executive orders that can go (and have gone in some cases) unchecked once enacted. >2) recounts did not become moot In that instance they did. But of course, something like this can never happen again even though it happened once already. >Surely you've noticed that other elections since then have also involved recounts and nobody has tried to prevent them going ahead on the basis of Bush v Gore. I haven't, care to point to some information?

Peaker 13y ago

When a website is insecure or abuses your trust, you can sue them, or they lose money. They have every incentive to make the web site honest and secure. If a website steals, someone who's lost money generally knows. When a voting system is insecure and abuses your trust, someone makes tremendous gains, and nobody may even know. The incentives to rig an election are huge, and the verifiability of an online election is very low. How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress?

cinquemb 13y ago
>When a voting system is insecure and abuses your trust, someone makes tremendous gains, and nobody may even know. The incentives to rig an election are huge, and the verifiability of an online election is very low. Because the electronic machines in use now aren't vulnerable? >How do you think paper ballots, for example, hinder progress? Not easily accessible to all people (like those with disabilities, and those without sufficient access to public transportation, those having to work without having the flexibility to show up to vote) and it's disconnected from the way more and more people are engaging about ideas and exchanging information that could influence how they vote. Same is true of electronic voting machines in use during elections… And it's not like people haven't documented themselves on youtube committing voting fraud in person or the news stories that pop up about it…
- Peaker 13y ago
  The electronic machines in use now are terrible, and should be abolished. I think these drawbacks of paper ballots are minor compared to "black box voting" where there's absolutely no way to prevent or even know about massive scale frauds.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    >I think these drawbacks of paper ballots are minor compared to "black box voting" where there's absolutely no way to prevent or even know about massive scale frauds. Way to minimize the disenfranchisement millions of people from the voting process. Besides, do you really think people are going to recount millions of ballots, when the last attempt to do so was waived away by appointed judges in 2000? Even if massive scale fraud were going on, most people would stick their heads in the sand (at least in the United States), like we have seen with other issues…