5 ms·

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 imp

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?

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?