Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#11

Post by LeafStorm »

splat wrote: post #8

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 ) 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.

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).

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#12

Post by LeafStorm »

Strilanc wrote: post #3

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'…

Don't the same problems apply to voting by mail?

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#13

Post by zanny »

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.

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#14

Post by maresca »

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?

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#15

Post by daenz »

Strilanc wrote: post #3

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'…

> it's impossible to tell if my boss was standing behind me telling me what to vote (or lose my job).

Then you just say you already voted and lie who you voted for. What will they do, confiscate your phone? (assuming phone voting). There are so many "outs" to the coercion scenario that it seems implausible that it would ever occur on any significant scale. What scenario can you think of where coercion would be a real issue?

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#16

Post by rmc »

Strilanc wrote: post #3

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'…

it's impossible to tell if my boss was standing behind me telling me what to vote

Or, much more likely and hard to change, a domineering family member making sure everyone votes the same way.

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#19

Post by sgolestane »

bdr wrote: post #10
mrsebastian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very, very good point. I don't even see an easy workaround, either... Hrm...

What about letting people change their vote?

In Estonia voters can change their e-votes an unlimited number of times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia#Ov...

Re: Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

#20

Post by muuh-gnu »

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.

Post reply on HN