Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
extremetech.com
Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#2I 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.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#3Internet 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.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#4Not 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.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#5Internet 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'…
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.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#6This could be huge if voting could magically change the fact that the fundamental principles of state rule are unethical and contradictory.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#7I 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 easie…
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?
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#8While 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)
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.
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#9Internet 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'…
That's a very, very good point.
I don't even see an easy workaround, either... Hrm...
Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs
#10Internet 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'…
That's a very, very good point. I don't even see an easy workaround, either... Hrm...
What about letting people change their vote?