35,765 Internet Votes Cast by Arizona Democrats 177
tgw writes, "According to the stats page of Election.com, 35,765 people cast votes remotely in what the Arizona Democrats believe to be the first legally binding public election in the world conducted via the Internet.
This number is almost triple the 12,800 people which voted in Arizona's 1996 Democratic Primary. For those unable to view the stats page a screenshot of it is available here. 'Remote Voting' in the Arizona Democratic Primary was allowed via any Internet-connected computer from Tuesday (3/7) through midnight on Friday (3/10). The election concludes on Saturday (3/11) when people can cast votes only from the 124 designated polling places - using either a computer or paper ballot to cast their vote."
Re:A little more info . . . (Score:1)
I raise this point because of the recent case of a State Department program being writen by Russians. Additionally, Yahoo just ran an article about the Aum Shinri Kyo sect wrote some software for the Japanese police. Apparently, this allowed the sect to track some of police vehicles. [yahoo.com]
Who did the state of Arizona used to go over the code? Craw, sans cookie
It is not SECRET voting! (Score:1)
WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT BOTCHED IMPLEMENTATION (Score:4)
Please, don't tell me I needed to run Linux. (I do, but my Linux box was down this week.) My point is simply that if I had problems under Win98 with the voting page's JAVA applet, (Using 2 different browsers) than there are probably more people who did, too. That makes it a poor implementation in my book.
Why aren't people discussing the how?
Re:A Success Story (Score:1)
I'm sure they weren't the first either.
Re:Online voting is racist? (Score:1)
The current system is biased against the car-less.
But a borgo-centric election backend? Election returns in PowerPoint-digested-to-HTML?
George Orwell is behind this, I tell ya!
Re:Fake Votes (Score:1)
The clue level is down there at the freezing point of Helium.
No way would I cast a binding vote on an NT shitbox. (yeah, it's secure)
So people are lazy (Score:1)
Re:It is not SECRET voting! (Score:2)
I often manage polls, and we have very specific rules to make sure that we get an uncoerced vote. That polling booth with the curtain by itself is not enough to guarantee that the voter is not being pressured to vote a certain way. It's the polling booth, with the curtain, surrounded by a supervised open space in a polling place open to the public where all can see, the voter is in there alone, and there is absolutely no way to tell what was marked on that particular ballot. Ballots are serialized, and voters sign in after verification of identity, but there is absolutely no way to connect a particular ballot with a particular voter.
Voters who require assistance may choose an assistant to go with them, but a poll manager goes also to ensure that the voter is not being coerced. And if you are a candidate or organization interested in the way the election is being run, you can come or send a representative to observe the polling places, to make sure everything is fair.
There are methods for dealing with irregularities in public challenge hearings. There are rules about campaigning in and around the polling places. Candidates may greet folks waiting in the line, but they can't pass out campaign literature there. Law officers are allowed in only to vote, otherwise they cannot enter unless a poll manager calls them in.
On the whole, I suspect that much of the enthusiasm about internet voting would evaporate if those who favor it could experience the joys of machine politics, which these rules, workable only in "meatspace", are designed to prevent.
Re:WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT BOTCHED IMPLEMENTAT (Score:2)
That doesn't sound like a very smart thing to do. Not to mention that it's not something the average Win98 user will think to do.
Better Democracy (Score:3)
My friend and I have actually had several debates about the impact of these types of changes to the election process. Despite what many Americans believe the type of government that we have is not a Democracy it is a Representative Democracy. And given that fewer than 25% of potential voters vote in any given election or referendum then we really have a Representative Democracy controlled by a small minority of the population. Of the people that vote some vote because they enjoy participating in the process. Others, perhaps the majority tend to be people who has a specific interest is how a vote turns out. The level of participation is directly influenced by how a given vote will directly impact their lives, beliefs or livelihood.
The recent Presidential Primaries are a prime example. The level of turnout has been extraordinary. For the left there is the fear of a House, Senate and President all being controlled by Republicans. From the right there is the fear both of electing a candidate incapable of defeating Gore and of another four years of immoral Presidential antics
It all really started with the Motor Voter push. A process where someone can register to vote by simply filling in a little extra on the Driver's license renewal to be registered to vote. Before this the task or registering to vote was inconvenient. Often requiring the person to take time off from work to go register.
Republicans were afraid of the Motor Voter because it threatened to dramatically change the demographic of voters. Republicans tend to be Middle to upper income people with two ore more years of college. Democrats ten to be hourly workers with lower income and less education. The fear was that making the process more convenient would push the demographic further to the left. Fortunately for Republicans the actual act of voting was still inconvenient.
Online voting is the next obvious improvement to increasing voter participation. People could either go to the local library of log on from home to vote. The implications are obvious. Thus making the process even more convenient, will the demographic be pushed to the left as predicted? Even more importantly, do we want something more akin to a true Democracy where a majority of the population can conveniently participate?
The first question is really interesting. Though the results from Arizona won't be known for a few more days I'll go ahead and make some predictions. Despite the increased convenience, computers are still a relative luxury. Computers require a certain amount of education to understand and use. Despite the number of computers in use the number of users computer savvy enough to make it through the voting process is much smaller. Many users simply use their net connection to send and receive e-mail. AOL users will have to jump through several hoops and know what too look for to find the browser. It seems to boil down that any vote conducted on the web may actually skew to the right. Polls during the Clinton Impeachment seem to back this up. MSNBC polls often skewed so far to the right you would have thought Clinton would be standing on the corner with a little tin cup asking for donations. A further prediction is that Republican States will be the first to implement Online voting. Its a win-win scenario. They get a better Republican turnout and little fight from Democrats since they would look extremely hypocritical in light of how they beat Republicans over the head with Motor Voter.
The second question is a real head scratcher. On one hand you have the normal curve tendency. Online voters may have little impact on how votes turn out since simply scaling up the same general voting turnout may not change to actual vote results. On the other hand voting may tend to skew more and more to the right because the haves (wealthy, educated Republicans) will be more likely to vote than the have-nots. This imbalance in the power distribution will likely create interesting results.
Assuming the first scenario is true, and in the long run as computers become as inexpensive and accessible as toasters its is likely to become so, the next question is how votes change due to increased access to knowledge. This online format allows for more at-hand information about possible candidates as well as voting referendums. Since the wording of proposals will become more high profile, the mishmash of convoluted wording that passes for a proposal today will have to change. Having to vote yes to say no to a ballot will become an embarrassment for the people who write them. Voters will have access to actual voting statistics on candidates and much of the obfuscation and outright deceit in today's politics may not survive the bright light.
Last, what does this mean for the future of politics? It's not unforeseeable that sometime in the future the representative democracy may disappear. The hidden assumption is that we need this form of government because the sheer numbers of decisions involved and the amount of information needed to make these decisions are too time consuming for each individual voter. Representatives are elected to act as surrogates to make these decisions for us. In the future though this may not remain true. First, we all understand that many of the decisions currently made especially in the State and Federal government are made at the party level. Second, if even a steady 10% of voters can keep up with voting on these decisions online it may become feasible to get rid of most Representative functions. There will be the fear of knee-jerk politics, but that wouldn't really be much of a change anyhow.
I wouldn't expect this to catch on (Score:2)
Republican stronghold states - most of the bible belt - will probably follow suit within a matter of years, but in states without a pronounced Republican majority this innovation is going to take a lot longer, at least until there is parity between minority and white Internet usage, not to mention between genders. This, also, will takes decades, perhaps.
--
Re:there were problems??? theres a big suprise (Score:1)
Same as an absentee ballot (Score:2)
Boss tells all employees to vote by absentee ballot. Boss tells all employees to vote from work. No diff.
The magic ballot number and the address can be tied together when the absentee ballots are mailed out. The PIN number and votes can be tied together. Net voting would be somewhat easier, but both are possible. I dare say the net voting tie would be easier to discover since it all happens in one place. Absentee ballot tieing could be easily limited to just a few, which would be harder to discover.
--
Costa Rica internet's FIRST (Score:1)
Re:A Success Story (Score:2)
Was this via the web or using a proprietary telnet/tn3270/etc connection?
A Success Story (Score:4)
This may sound like a shameless plug but at least it's on topic ;-)
I am one of the programmers for The College of William and Mary [wm.edu]'s student community, The Student Information Network. [wm.edu] We've been providing essential student services for over two years (log in as 'guest' and check it out), and we're entirely student run.
Which means, of course, when the time came to run the student elections online, everyone was worried that apathy and ballot stuffing would come to the fore. On February 29, 2000, the entire student body had the chance to vote from any web browser. Needless to say, we had a lot of sleepless nights ;-) but we managed to pull off a fair election.
The results were spectacular!
It may be noted humorously that, as befits most college elections, a lot of people ran for positions unopposed -- why fear ballot stuffing then
In conclusion, not only am I showing that online elections are doable, but that they are a pleasure to do. If I'm not mistaken, that makes us the first university to have full, binding student body elections entirely online in the nation. Can someone show a date of such an election earlier than Feb 29, 2000 in case we are wrong? I'm curious.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled grits.
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:1)
Wave of the future: corner kiosks for up to the minute updates on legislation, so finally every individual can keep constant tabs on what laws they may or may not be breaking.
Issue voting... (Score:1)
To a certain degree, I see your point. However, I would like to make a couple of opposite points:
Right now, it's very possible for about 5-10% of the population to block/pass (depending on the issue) a certain proposition. This is ludicrous. It makes it possible for a small minority of people to hold the entire populance hostage. I know, this is not supposed to be possible , but given low voter turnout, it very much is. This is no longer a problem for mandatory voting. In that case, you need a minimum of 51% of the vote to get something passed or blocked.
Now, this could be bad, too, given that maybe it's pretty close (say 45/55 split). For voter referendums, I would suggest requring a supermajority (66% or 2/3 of votes). In general, you should not be putting alot of legislative agendas on the ballot - that's what you have elected representatives. Referendums should be reserved for broad policy votes (Will we allow personal pets? and not Are cats allowed?)
Also, in my opinion, people who vote primarily (or solely) on a single-issue are very bad for the system as a whole. You do NOT want a system where all delegates have a single agenda, and are inflexible on that agenda. This leads to gridlock, animosity, and generally very bad government. While it may be possible for single-issue voters to swing a close election, in general, with mandatory voting, single-issue voters (who tend to be a small, but well motivated, percentage) cannot dictate the outcome of the election. They can right now, and that's bad.
The difference right now is that democracies are Representative Democracies, not Direct Democracies. When we get to the point where people can easily vote on all issues, then we can have this discussion over again about mandatory/voluntary voting. But in a representative democracy, very few individual "issue" referendums should be put to a vote. In reality, I'm for NO referendums, and let the representatives do everything. That way, you can kick them out and put in a new bunch to change stuff much easier than trying to get rid of old, bad referendums.
-Erik
Problems in Electronic Voting... (Score:4)
I've got my handy copy of Applied Crypto around here, and looked up the section on voting. I would like a bit more information about the actual mechanics of the AZ vote before I would say it's a step in the right direction.
Requirements for Electronic (Internet) Voting, such that the vote would meet normal US voting standards:
According to Applied Crypto, these are very hard to accomplish. Alot of the problems are centered around where you place trust in the voting system. In ther AZ election, I saw misplaced trust (ie, potential violations of the above principles) in three places:
While interesting as a first step, I think that this was a good example of exactly how far we have to go before Internet voting can become real.
Nice Try, but Not Quite.
-Erik
Voter Turnout, Internet Voting, and Civic Duty... (Score:4)
Unfortunately, in the US, the number of citizen that are eligible to vote which actually do is very low. Last I looked, for a nationwide campaign like the Presidency, about 15% of all eligible voters would vote come Nov 2000. Now, that's about 40% of all registered voters (since not everyone who is eligible actually registers). I've read that there is a similar situation in many other "western" democracies that don't have mandatory voting laws (yes, some countries are much better, but not many). Complacency in the system is a nasty disease that hurts a country.
A big argument (which you will see in previous posts) is that people who cannot be bothered to participate in their own future by voting should not be accomodates, and indeed, would be harmful if they were accomodated by a universal voting law. A similar argument is that if we force uneducated (about the candidates/issues, that is) voters to vote, then the system will be skewed towards unhealthy trends (ie, those with a high profile/large PR campaign/demogogues), since those uneducated voters will be unable to make meaningful decisions on complex issues.
I'd like to put out my views on this, and as how Internet/Electronic Voting might help solve some of our voter turnout problem...
Also, the relative education (voting-wise) of a person has alot to do with the ease of access to solid information. If large amounts of both summary and detailed position information is available in an easy-to-access format (see, the Web!), then voter education is much higher. Granted, there will be a considerable number of people who do not read this information, and are swayed by PR, but if managed properly, this percentage should not be a majority (or even a large minority).
Oops, this is getting long. Conter-arguments, anyone?
;-)
-Erik
Re:I don't understand much of the criticism here.. (Score:2)
Where I used to live, they used paper ballots with serial numbers. The serial number was written in your voter registration records. The part of the ballot with the serial number was detached before the ballot was put in the ballot box.
Re:Voter Turnout, Internet Voting, and Civic Duty. (Score:2)
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
If 60% of the population is weakly in favor of X and 30% of the population is strongly opposed to X, does the passage of X serve the public interest? The current system increases the influence of those who are motivated enough about an issue to get up off their ass and vote.
The NRA is a good example of this. Even though gun control may be popular is some opinion polls, depending on how the questions are worded, the NRA has millions of members who feel very strongly about the issue. There are more than a few ex-Senators and ex-Representatives who lost their seats due to their support for gun control. The gun control advocacy groups are much smaller, raise less money and are heavily dependent on a small group of wealthy supporters. Supporters of gun control are much less likely than gun control opponents to base their decision on whether or not to vote for a candidate on the candidate's position on gun control. This is natural. If there was a ballot referendum to exterminate all cats, there would be a lot of upset cat owners showing up at the polling places, ready to lynch any candidate who endorsed cat control.
Re:So people are lazy (Score:3)
Dead Men Voting... (Score:2)
Yabut... How many of them were actually alive and breathing? I don't know about Arizona, but in Illinois -- Chicago specifically -- dead people routinely cast election votes.
This kinda gives a new meaning to the word "killfile"...
--
Re:Online voting is racist? (Score:1)
CEO of Election.com on CNN (Score:1)
He claimed that it gave people more choices, especially people with disablities.
It was interesting information that election.com is a FOR-PROFIT company. It does legal binding votings since about a year, not only in the U.S., but also in Europe. Most of these votings were for companies.
I personally am a little sceptical about a for-profit company collecting votes in a democracy.
this is the world's worst idea (Score:1)
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
Re:GGun control isnt unconstitutional (Score:1)
Have you read that before??? It says nothing about giving "a well-organized militia the right to bear arms". It says that because the right to bear arms will not be infringed, the country will have a built-in militia.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you and other gun-banners not understand?
Re:The U.S. Constitution DEMANDS gun control (Score:1)
You obviously don't understand what the word ammendment means. You can't possibly realize that what you just said equates the rest of the rights granted us by the ammendments to privileges which may be 'the Government may rescind at any time'.
I'm thinking the government should revoke your 'privilege' to spew this complete drivel.
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
I'm waiting...
What really scares me about this, is that it's not the government positing that certain types of people shouldn't do X (vote in this case) - I'd expect it from them. How in hell could you possibly oppose something that will ease the process of voting?!?!
Realistically, if someone can't take the 30 minutes it takes to go to the ballot box, and is too lazy to go to the Post Office or Library to fill out a Absentee Ballot form, they shouldn't vote. Is it that hard?
[sarcasm mode] Well, I agree, but I don't think that that is quite enough to prove one's worthiness. We should make sure that those that vote really mean it. Let's charge a few grand for the privilege of voting, then we'll know that those pesky voters are really committed. [/sarcasm mode]
And anyway, since when is laziness not a desirable trait in a voter? Who the hell determined that?
Re:Rights aren't conditional (Score:1)
Damn you're illiterate. Show me where it states that I must 'participate' in a militia to own a gun?
The second is the only Ammendment that starts with a conditional clause.
It's not a conditional clause, it is explanatory. What that means to me is that they wanted to make sure they got their message across even to idiots such as yourself. Let me boil it down for you: shall not be infringed.
Re:I enjoyed voting (Score:1)
Re:I enjoyed voting (Score:1)
Re:Giving-in to lack of motivation (Score:1)
That said, I like waiting for the last minute, since I may always learn something about all the wacky propositions we have in California to want to change my mind. Absentee voting by mail sucks because you have to vote a week or more in advance (and apply several weeks ahead of time). A good, easy, secure internet solution is nice because you would be able to vote at the last minute (ideally without having to apply for such a voting option too far ahead of time).
In the future, I think the majority of voting will be done on computer, and it will help increase turnout. However, it will probably not do much to increase turnout for the poor (where the largest percentage of untapped voting power resides).
Online voting is racist? (Score:3)
- But the head of a Virginia-based voters' rights group said the larger the turnout, the more discriminatory the election will be for minorities and others.
They go on to call it a modern day poll-tax. I think it's kind of silly myself, but it's an interesting point to counter everyone's "rah rah internet" attitude."It just dilutes the votes of minority voters because they don't have as much access to the Internet," said Deborah Phillips, Voting Integrity Project president. "The more popular this is, the worse it is from our perspective."
Re:Giving-in to lack of motivation (Score:1)
In California, we had elections last Tursday on various bond measures along with the candidate selections. I read through much of the material this year to see what those measures were really about. What I found was truly appalling: the bond names related to about 1% of the bonds' effects.
Two examples will help:
- Prop 12: Parks, Water, and Coastal Protection Act
- Prop 26: Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountabiity
Where are they getting the names for these bills? And have you read any of them? First, they're in lawyerspeak, which most Americans cannot understand. Second, they are looooong.The $2.1 billion bond covers aquisition of land containing natural resources, cultural centers for youth and senior groups, creating natural habitats, archaeological deposits, rock art, artifacts of California's physical legacy, sites, ruins and more.
Revokes most of Prop 13 from 1978 which implemented a cap (1%) on runaway property taxes. It changes the vote necessary from 2/3 to 1/2 for school bond issues. The rest mostly deals with limiting the growth of charter schools by increasing their costs.
So how is one to choose how to vote? Why, watch all the TV commercials: "Our schools are filled with violence!" -- "Our water gets more polluted every year" -- "Our kids will lose $700 million each year" -- "Indians will open casinos in your neighborhood."
The legislators know very few people will read the bills and be able to make an informed vote. They know the rest will rely on the TV ads. So the TV ads use the same tactics used to persuade you to by one laundry detergent over another: branding that appeals to your emotions and fears.
By encouraging everyone to "just get out and vote," we are vastly increasing the number of uninformed voters. Believe me, I want people to vote, but I don't want sheep to vote. But I'm sure that's what the legislators want.
No, I don't know what the solution is. People have suggested having civics classes that teach people what the bills mean, but who decides what the bills mean? If it's the legislators who provide the summary material, what's the difference?
I'd like to see the people who really care to take the time to research the bills be the ones voting. There's no reason for everyone to vote on all issues. Instead, provide a very easy way for people (everyone) to make their general desires known:
Then, those that research and vote can take into consideration the consensus of their community along with their own views. This, I believe, was supposed to be the role of the legislators, but we are well past the point of that being viable. Now they are merely concerned with reelection and spreading pork to their districts.
- PatientZero
Re:what exactly would the point have been? (Score:1)
Re:A Success Story (Score:1)
(And FYI, it was the first to have online class registration, the first large school to have web-based class registration, and the first to have a web-based course critique).
Re:A Success Story (Score:1)
Class registration used to be through that system, but started moving over to the web system sometime in '96(?). By the time I graduated, it was all browser based.
# of votes (Score:2)
Oh, sorry. My vote bot got out of hand.
On the plus side, Mudge is the new representative form Arizona.
35,000 out of almost 5 million... (Score:1)
Were they the first? (Score:1)
http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/bulletin/2000/mar/0
Re:Fake Votes (Score:1)
I guess if you know someone else's PIN... but then again, that's not very different than knowing someone's password. Either way, there's not much you can do about it...
Re:GGun control isnt unconstitutional (Score:1)
Being the libetarian type of person I am, I certainly agree with the notion that weapon possesion ensures liberty and democracy. I also agree that handguns or rifles or whatever people like to own won't make much difference in that type of fight.
However, I think referring to it as a fallacious argument is overreacting a little. First, even if the total gun ownership in the nation won't make a dent in the armament controlled by the military, that doesn't mean we should end right there and just take them away. Every little bit will help, if it comes down to it. Second, I highly doubt the military would resort to using biological weapons on US citizens. They don't even do that in places liike Libya or North Korea (that we know about, at least), so to think that they would use bio. weapons, or nuclear weapons, on its own citizens is inconceivable. Guns, therefore, could make a little difference, but I admit, not as much as in 1780.
There has been some kind of precedent from way back when that some weapons are just too dangerous for the public to own. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons certainly, and I would probably agree with that one. Also, any kind of large explosives ar either banned or highly controlled. Claiming that we would need bombs in the event we have to revolt against a civilized government might be a valid argument for large explosive ownership, until you realize that the potential for abuse is simply too large, from a utilitarian point of view, to allow. In other words, so many more people would die if random people could own huge explosives, that it's probably worth lessening the chances the citizens would win such a revolt. The question is how far you want to extend that argument. Nuclear bombs, biological weapons, of course. But will you extend it all the way down to automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or even handguns, and say that it's worth saving those lives, even though it lowers the chances that the people win their future revolt by x%? It's a question of balancing the two interests, and it's not one that can be answered easily and consistently. But next time you think about gun control and liberty, remember it's a continuium all the way from the H-bomb to firecrackers. How many lives do we want to save and how much do we want to risk the triumph of a totalitarian state?
[[ If this sounds disjointed and unorganized, it's because I wrote it down as I though of it, and I just had a few drinks. Thanks for reading. ]]
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:1)
Re:A Success Story (Score:1)
This is great! (Score:1)
Because for the first time in a long time the polls might actually be balanced. For many years this country has had more power given to older people than younger people because of how the voting system works. Let's face it: If you're retired and dependent on medicare, you're going to be damn sure to get your voice heard at the ballots! On top of that, you one of the few people who have the time to get down to the ballot boxes. Other people, however, who may work 9-5 jobs or worse, do not!
Now politicians may start having to pay attention to the younger generation once again!
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
Whoever said voting was supposed to be an easy process? If (hypothetically speaking) you can't be bothered to drag yourself away from Jerry Springer long enough to head to your polling place, what are the odds that you've put any thought into your choices? Odds are good that you'll vote for whoever/whatever had the catchiest slogan, the prettiest/most handsome smile, or whatever...things that have absolutely no bearing on how a candidate might do in office or the effect a ballot initiative might have on your life and the lives of your neighbors.
There's also the issue of security. You might trust your credit card to the Internet (I've made a few purchases that way and haven't been screwed yet, except for one company that took two months to ship a hard drive), but would you trust your vote to the Internet? I've been using the 'net for over ten years, but I don't think I would. I have a hard enough time dealing with the electronic voting machines used here (Clark County, Nevada) that generate no audit trail. Just as it'd be all too easy to divert a memory cartridge from one of those voting machines for some "reprogramming," what's to keep unscrupulous individuals (and since it was the Democrats who ran this experiment, unscrupulous individuals are a foregone conclusion) from intercepting/blocking communications, twiddling bits on the server, or whatever? Unless they've tightened security down on this thing like it was Fort Knox, they're just asking to be 0wNed by some script kiddie. Would you trust your vote to a script kiddie with a root kit?
Maybe someone should ask the Arizona GOP why they didn't go for this plan. I bet it'd be interesting reading.
Poor => no internet access? (Score:2)
This is true today. However it may not be true in a few years time. Today, fairly poor people (though not the very poorest) are more likely to have newer televisions and video players - because TV is a comparatively cheap form of entertainment. This may be true of Internet access tomorrow.
Re:I don't understand much of the criticism here.. (Score:1)
Re:Good. (Score:1)
Re:Fake Votes (Score:2)
Sure, it's not foolproof. But it's probably a lot more secure than the complicated paper systems that are in general use.
Re:Giving-in to lack of motivation (Score:4)
No, of course not. Everyone gets one vote becuase everyone is one citizen, period, end of sentence. It's the responsibility of the government to make our lives better, if they can make our lives easier (which they can with internet voting), then they have the responsibility to do so.
Context of the world Militia (Score:2)
When the constitution was written, "the militia" was considered to be all the people in the United States. The reason being is that it was the people's responsiblity to defend the country -- there wasn't really a standing army, at least not one that could be compared to what we call the army now.
"well regulated", in the language of the time, doesn't refer to organization (or control by the government). Rather, from the research I did, meant more along the means of "up to date" or "modernly equipped."
What does this mean? Well, I think that it means that every person in this country has a right to own a "modern" firearm. This provision does NOT prevent the government from restricting access to certain firearms, it just prevents it from restricting access to all modern firearms.
You must also consider that for a long period of time, there was a law in this country requiring that every able bodied man keep a rifle and a box of ammunition in their home.
(for what it's worth, I don't own a firearm, and never plan on owning one)
Re:this is the world's worst idea (Score:2)
However, with a time period of 10 hours, cracking a system with decent security measures in place will be difficult. And you've got that 10 hour window once per year. Oh, and I bet the system changes a bit each time
I'd be more worried about DOS attacks than someone hacking the system. Hell, if they wrote it right you can probably tell if the results have been tainted in some fashion....
Can't get much worse than having voters vote 100 years after they die...
Re:Internet Voting = Bad, IMO (Score:2)
How many people do you know that actually know what they're voting on before they get there? Other than the highly publicized "races" on the evening *cough* news *cough*.
Re:Who cares why you vote, as long as you do (Score:1)
of course, presumably the only time anyone would punch a lace ballot is if all the candidates for every position, and all the measures presented, were just too dire to even consider...sadly, this situation ACTUALLY HAPPENS...
--
"HORSE."
Internet Voting = Bad, IMO (Score:1)
Perhaps an example would be useful: Take Joe Q. Voter. He's a 27 year old male, who spends all his time on the computer. He doesn't go to election speeches. He doesn't own a car -- just takes the bus, which isn't often.
Now imagine this. Our buddy Joe is surfing around the 'net, reading his e-mail, playing Quake, and looking at porn, when suddenly he sees a link that says "Vote Online Here!"
Remember, he hasn't paid attention to any of the candidates' election platforms. He's probably sitting in his chair, scratching himself (sorry for putting that image in your head) with one hand, and using his mouse to cast his vote with the other.
Now, ask yourself: is THIS the kind of person who we want to have a say in the next leader of the free world? I think not.
Lets face it folks, the world would be better off if some people didn't vote!
,-----.----...---..--..-....-
' CitizenC
' "Bug? That's Not A Bug, That's A Feature!"
`-----.----...---..--..-....-
"Armed" isn't just rifles. (Score:2)
The "Armed" of the 2nd Amendment doesn't just mean rifles and pistols. The founding fathers had personal cannon and warships, as well - the absolute latest high-tek superweapons of the day. And the general population's small arms ran to higher-accuracy longer-range rifles while the world's armies were still toting smoothbores.
There is no sign they intended that to change as technology improved - and plenty of sign that they intended the trend to continue. They knew about progress, especially in weaponry, and wrote about it incessantly. (Machine-guns, for instance, had already been prototyped at the time.) They stated clearly that they intended the population to always be BETTER armed than the government - both to stand off invasions from other governments and to their own government in its place - or destroy and replace it - if it ever got out of hand.
So if the minions of governments have SAWs, RPG, nerve gas, or nukes, what makes anyone think the founders would not have wanted the citizens to have them, too? The logic of the "balance of terror" is as valid between a population and its government as it is between two governments.
And what makes anyone think they're safer from a nuke in the hand of the likes of Hussein, or flammable-gas-projecting tanks in the hands of the likes of Horriuchi and Reno, than they are with them in the hands of a private citizen with the means to purchase them? (For myself, I'd trust any private citizen who could afford a nuke farther than most of the presidents since the start of the nuclear age.)
No more Chinese campaign contributions! (Score:2)
Ok, congresscritters. You can stop doing the campaign-finance-laws dance.
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
America is built on the fact that the stupidest mf'r in the world gets a vote. They don't have to prove anything, or take a test, or flog themselves to be worthiness. Who made you God to decide who gets the honor of casting a vote on things that effect everyones lives?
Re:Who cares why you vote, as long as you do (Score:1)
So even people who want to exercise their freedom of speech by not voting can do so.
At least there's more information in the fact that 3% of the voters returned an empty form, than in knowing that 51% didn't bother voting.
Who cares why you vote, as long as you do (Score:2)
One of the main arguments pro voting duty is that 'less privileged' parts of the population get to have their democratic say.
OTOH, some people think it encourages people to use their vote irresponsibly (voting for extreme right-wing parties out of dissatisfaction with more centrist ones, for example).
Personally, I like it. It gives me a warm feeling to know everybody's had his or her say in the government of the country. Oh, and it's nice to have a choice of parties, as well. As in more than two parties.
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:1)
Somebody with access to a LOT of IPs and a little time could make a big difference, no?
Mong.
* Paul Madley
Re:WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT BOTCHED IMPLEMENTAT (Score:1)
I think, however, the fact that over 35,000 people managed to successfully vote online makes b****ing about implementation (security withheld, of course) a moot point.
Re:Correct. Note which party: It's a scam. (Score:1)
A. I am a fairly competent citizen of California working at an intense start up in a highly congested area aka San Francisco. I was unable to vote in our March 7th election for many reasons:
All of these are common problems of citizens of highly congested urban areas like myself. Now tell me that internet voting would not gain a significant number of voters from this demographic...
B. I am sorry to say that you have exactly as much right to vote as the homeless man you pass on your way to work everyday. In the eyes of the U.S. government, and the U.S. Constitution, you have exactly as much worth as he does. No more, no less. And they have as much right to say people who post ignorant comments on Slashdot should be denied the right to vote as they do to deny that right from any citizen of the United States.
Traditional Voting Rules... (Score:1)
Re:Problems in Electronic Voting... (Score:1)
In practice, I wan't eligible to vote, and I do trust the various parties, and the electronic voting was probably more secure than most paper ballots. But there are schemes where you don't have to have 100% trust in the powers that be. See the relevant chapter in Applied Cryptography.
Why did the Arizona Democrats and Election.com choose a scheme which allowed them to cheat? Probably because a simple scheme is easier to implement & test.
Good argument, bad application (Score:1)
But that can't be applied to internet voting.
I voted absentee this year. I simply couldn't get to the poll in time - by the time I got back home (damn commute!), the polls would have been closed.
Think of internet voting like absentee voting, only with the use of a keyboard and mouse rather than a punchcard (at least for California, I dunno how they do absentee elsewhere)...
Re:Women and the vote: Predictable results. (Score:1)
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:1)
Re:Online voting is racist? (Score:2)
If it discriminates against the poor, that's one thing. BUT DON'T CALL THAT RACIST.
Does anyone stop to think that saying, "it discriminates against the poor" means "it discriminates against black people" makes the racist assumption that black people are poor?
Never mind. I already know the answer. A jounalist? Stop to think?
--Kevin
Re:GGun control isnt unconstitutional (Score:1)
While you're at it, could you:
Thank you.
Oh, and have Natalie bring some whipped cream. She'll be wanting to wear it later.
--
Re:Online voting is racist? (Score:1)
Not an assumption -- a statistical fact. Obviously not all black people are poor -- that remark would be racist -- but disproportionably enough that people stop and look at the consequences. Personally, I agree with you -- internet polling != discrimination -- but it's still worth thinking about.
Re:Problems in Electronic Voting... (Score:1)
2. SSL was used in the transmission of the vote. Additionally, the java applet encrypted the sers vote prior to it "leaving" the voter's PC.
3. The vote tallying was not done by election.com, it was done by an independent accounting/auditing firm which also oversaw the eniter application develoment process as well as the hardening and security measures in place at the hosting site. Also, the table keeping track of who had or had not voted was kept separate from the table that recorded the votes. Only the independent auditors had the private key to decrypt the votes themselves. The passwords to access the database servers were not known by any one person...half of the password was typed in by a member of election.com and the other half was typed in by a member of the auditing firm.
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:2)
Apparently what they do is something like current absentee ballots where you put your name on the envelop then seal the ballot in a seperate envelop and put that in the first. When the government gets that ballot it takes down your name and tosses the sealed ballot to the side to count on election day. The result for the absentee is that they get that you voted but no one know who you voted for.
For "e-ballots" what I heard was that they split the vote up, meaning when you click send (or whatever it is) the vote is broken up and sent to two diffrent locations. That means that they send the fact that you voted and all your information to one server, while the vote itself is sent to another.
How this works I couldn't exactly explain because the article was so vague, but I think that since you have to fill this out by multiple pages (the ballot is not on the same page as the personal info) I'm assuming that they automatically transition servers after you submit the personal info, and of course if the company doing this is even remotely legit, they do this via SSL/SQL (I don't do web security correct me if this is wrong) so you can't hit back and vote a gazillion times.
Also, the location of the servers for this election were kept secret and out of state to prevent tampering. They story also said something of encryption 4000 times more powerful than the current web standard (128-bit?), but of course they didn't explain how it was implemented and I have know idea how you'd implement it if the client side is still only 128-bit, 56-bit or whatever.
Well that's my explaination hope you like!
OakLEE
Voter Preferences (Score:1)
Re:What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:1)
Corner kiosks? You lack vision, my friend. Wearables!
It's running NT! (Score:1)
I'm afraid I agree with those who say no online voting... it can't be done fairly, IMHO. (well, at least until they approve the new IP spec *grin*)
MO
Re:Fake Votes (Score:2)
But authentication for voting should be better than just having to enter a single PIN. What happens if somebody intercepts a bunch of physical this-is-your-PIN letters on their way to the voters, or -- better yet -- snoops on their PINs when they're being sent online? (According to another poster, the site doesn't even use SSL!)
The correct approach would be using public key encryption, which would eliminate the need to send out PINs (just grab the voting office's public key from the net) and, with a decent level of encryption like that offered by PGP, would make cracking the voting message nearly impossible. Unfortunately, I somehow doubt that the Powers That Be want to see PGP installed in every household, and the voting office still needs to get the public keys of all voters somehow. But there have been plenty of schemes for government-run public key authorities, and it's probably only a matter of time until the infrastructure for digital signatures is created.
In all, online voting is a nifty idea, but there are a lot of security issues that need to be considered very carefully when implementing it. As a trivial example, can you imagine the impact of a well-timed DoS attack?
Cheers,
-j.
Au contraire (Score:1)
A little more info . . . (Score:4)
- The first online election they did as a company this summer was for the IEEE. Believe me when I say that IEEE representatives went through the software with a fine-toothed comb, and made absolutely certain it was secure by their standards, which were extreemly strict. While I can't talk much about the software itself, suffice to say that just about any security problem you've thought of they thought of a long, long time ago, and fixed.
- As far as the anonymity of the elections, yes, this is difficult to preserve in a strict sense. However, as far as I know, the PINs and names are kept in completely separate databases and never cross-referenced at all. Valid PINs are generated independently of the voters. Election.com also obviously signs strict confidentiality agreements with the AZ democrats, etc, so the chances of vote tracking are remote (and illegal) at best. The PINs are also generated from a pool large enough to make the aforementioned "Birthday paradox" extreemly improbable. It would be infinitely easier to get a fake ID and walk into the physical polling place and stuff the ballot that way.
- As far as the disparity between different socio-economic classes, several of the press releases stated that an additional 29 polling places would be set up (above the traditional polling places) in under-privelidged neighborhoods to compensate.
Just on a personal note, regardless of my connections with the company, I think online voting is absolutely one of the best things that could happen to the democratic process in this nation. From the voter turnout in this election alone, we can see that many, many more voters have turned out to express their opinions in this election. Voting this way is not catering to the "lazy" voters out there, as was suggested. Rather, it is giving the opportunity for everyone to take part in their government without ever having to leave their desks. I think if this catches on in other states (and eventually nationally) the democratic process in this country will improve exponentially - more people will care more about what is going on in their government, and for once, more people will do something about it.PKI (Re:No more Chinese campaign contrib!) (Score:1)
What makes you so sure they actually buy elections without the Internet? Maybe they coerce the vote-counters! Bullets are cheaper. Oh... You mean the *AMERICAN* presidential elections..
Maybe these early Internet voting schemes are straw-men to keep the old system (very opaque to the voters) in place? Maybe you're astroturfing for the Dept. of State!
Anyone who has discovered public-key crypto knows that Internet voting is both workable, desirable, and is *FAR* cheaper than punch-ballots if done *CORRECTLY*...
I don't understand much of the criticism here... (Score:1)
> Aren't elections suppose to be annoymous? Can't they simply track your voting record by cross-referencing it with your pin number?
Don't you normally have numbered sheets where you have to put your vote on? That would be exactly the same. But there are laws which forbid to cross-reference them to get personal voting data.
The lack of SSL connections is however quite dumb...
Re:I don't understand much of the criticism here.. (Score:1)
Does that mean that you have no other choice than to physically go to some place and enter your vote there?
Not even by snail-mail?
If it really is that way, I'm not too surprised that too few people are voting in the US.
And in the news today... (Score:2)
WASHINGTON-Today, 20,000,000,000 voters voted over the internet in a surprise nomination for president, the Linux creator Linus Torvalds.
"Well, I'm honored, really, to get so many votes, but I wasn't actually born here, so I can't do it," a happy but reluctant Torvalds says.
"This is the highest voter turnout we've ever seen!" Says Sen. H. R. Flappergaster. "The voter turnout for Mr. Torvalds was over 10000%. I have never seen anything like it."
Some of the other candidates attacked the results, saying that the votes were 'faked.' They sited the fact that '20 billion is over three times the population of the Earth.' The Committee to Elect Linus Torvalds did not respond, except to say "neener neener neener."
Giving-in to lack of motivation (Score:4)
In some senses, voting via the internet seems to fall along similar lines. Such an action seems to be giving-in the people who are not motivated enough to drive to the polls to cast their votes. The above action should thus be avoided.
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
lazy people shouldn't vote ->a few steps-> white male only voters.
Where did this come from? Who is making the sweeping generalizations?
If anything, move Election Day onto a weekend. Let people go when they arent working. (Obviously you can't solve everyone's problem).
Realistically, if someone can't take the 30 minutes it takes to go to the ballot box, and is too lazy to go to the Post Office or Library to fill out a Absentee Ballot form, they shouldn't vote. Is it that hard?
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
Going out on a limb here. If you are too lazy to go and vote, one can assume you are too lazy to follow the issues, and make an informed decision.
Why should some jack-hole negate my well researched, carefully determined vote by blindly pulling a lever?
Same reason holds true for the minimum age to vote. Why 21 then 18? Why not 6? Because most kids and teens don't care. (many do, i was one, but those are the exception).
Re:So people are lazy (Score:1)
Very interesting statement you make. This is true. So why should an uninformed, lazy SOB get to affect my life?
Not to pick nits. But only implies one. In most states, they vary slightly, The criteria to vote are, US Citizen, 18+ years of age, and not a convicted felon, and not been declared incompetant.
From the FEC.GOV site, "Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with Church services and Sunday worship. "
Dont tell me you are over burdened and cannot go vote. People were travelling for days to vote. Look at voting in Africa and Eastern Europe. Those lines stretch for MILES.... MILES...
Re:The U.S. Constitution DEMANDS gun control (Score:4)
The Amendments to the Constitution, and the Constituion in general is for limiting the powers of the Federal government. Look at the 10th amendment for proof. The text of the Declaration of Independance (which most of the Constitutional delegates also signed) says, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Because it is an amendment, does not make it so.
To the gun thing....in the next sentance or two after the unalienable thing is this: "...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." So to the gun-control advocates I say this... If a goverment cannot trust is citizens to be armed, why must the citizen trust the goverment? The Framers knew that personal possession of firearms was *critical* to any people being able to keep their government in check. Hell, when Redcoats are facing you with muskets, all the name calling and rock throwing won't get them to listen to you.
(stepping off the soapbox)
Re:The U.S. Constitution DEMANDS gun control (Score:1)
You can argue all you want about gun rights, but please don't tell me it's because you need to be ready to violently overthrow the government.
Re:I'm still skeptical (Score:2)
This is the type of liberal drivel that really annoys me. To think Internet voting excludes poor people because they don't have computers is ludicrous. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A COMPUTER, GET UP AND GO TO THE POLLING STATION. For God's sake - people with money can afford to be lazy and vote by computer. So what are we gonna do, spend billions of dollars of tax money to give poor people computers so they can be lazy and vote on the Internet, too? Will that be "fair?"
PS: Not attacking you, sreo, just the annoying liberal mindset that accompanies any new innovation in this country.
Re:not a good idea... (Score:2)
Possible problems include:
-Interception of PIN numbers before delivery
-"Birthday paradox" style attacks; one might accidentally run into a valid PIN, depending on how many combinations there are
-Many opportunities for your ISP/random host on the Internet to gather information, if the voting isn't done via an encrypted link
-Disparity in access between those of higher socioeconomic status and those for whom an Internet connection is less available (although people can still vote the traditional way)
-Authentifying votes as valid, while preserving the privacy of individual voters. A blinded signature scheme (c.f. Chaum digital coins) might help solve this problem.
Re:Fake Votes (Score:2)
hmmm, I wonder if they send them to the entire voting list or only people who have re-registered that year. Here in Cambridge, you only get voter info if you filled out the little "census and re-registration" card that they send you every year. But everytime I go and vote, the lists include housemates who moved out long ago and people who lived here before my landlord even bought the house. If they sent to everyone and had as bad a policy on inactive voters as we do around here, yeah, people who lived in say an appartment complex with a high turnover could cast 20 votes just by gathering up the envelopes in the return to sender stack in the mailroom. Or, better yet, recruit a couple of mail carriers to just keep all the notifications that they know don't live there anymore.
Not saying this would realisticly effect an election, just thinking about possible holes. Addmittedly a collection of people in different districts with good memories and the ability to read upside down can quarduple or more their votes around here if they want to put in the effort, so take it as you will.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Giving-in to lack of motivation (Score:3)
er, what if you don't own a car? retoricly speaking, since I live in a densly populated area and have been able to walk to my polling place most years, but...
You may have noticed that voting takes place on a workday. What if you commute long distances or work double shifts? even in national elections, most places don't allow you to choose a polling place near your work so you can vote on your lunch break. If you leave for work at 6am and get home at 8pm, tough, you don't vote.
What if you have a job where you travel a lot at hard to predict intervals? I took (in joke) to blaming the outcome of a close race here on a housemate who had to fly to chicago at the last minute to courier deliver something for her company. The last minute happened to be election day.
I have friends who's lives are so hectic that they register for absentee ballots as a matter of course. Bottom line is, people's lives are not always "9 to 5, work in the same town as you live" but voting still is. Secure internet voting is a way to allow greater political involvement, not just of the lazy, but of the hectic motivated. Works for me.
-Kahuna Burger
What kind of security do they have? Not much. (Score:5)
I see one big problem with this.
Aren't elections suppose to be annoymous? Can't they simply track your voting record by cross-referencing it with your pin number?
Another thing that worries me about this is that the pages don't look SECURE. When IE is on a secure page the icon of a webpage turns golden. They have a bunch of screen-shots and the icon doesn't look golden. You can grab them here. [election.com] Wouldn't this be a little problem? Hmmmm.
Remote Voting and The Open (Source) Party (Score:2)
Remote voting is extremely efficient. The steep increase in turnout in Arizona demonstrates that technology has the potential to allow voting on a much broader level. In the future, we may no longer have to rely on candidates to speak fully for us. Perhaps, the people of a nation could individually vote on political issues.
On the local level, referendum-style voting occurs all the time, but what about on the national level?
I would like to make an assumption here. Suppose we can avoid the balloting process being influenced in an inappropriate/disproportionate manner by special interests and other groups. That is, suppose we could have a fully secure and accurate voting system via the Internet. Then I think a true people's government (an open government) could be a reality
Much like the telephone, computers will soon be in every home. The connection provided by the Internet could allow a national level voting populace to decide on the legislation of specific issues instead of a select few. What bills do you want to have passed? What bills do you oppose? Instead of writing a letter to your congress person, cast your own vote.
I wonder if everyone having such specific voting power would be a bad thing? Popular sentiment is easily influenced by the news media. Can that component be minimized acceptably?
So let's change topics for a second. The open-source ethic seems to have spontaneously come into existence at the present level (without giving specific credit where due). When open source works, open source propagates. A fundamental change to the nation's political system could yield the same result. An open government, that is one in which the people have full scrutiny and voting power, could work self- correctingly. When problems arise, the dissemination of current and plentiful information via the Internet and remote voting could work to fix things. You don't have to do it for us -- we'll do it ourselves!
Optimal efficiency and participation are high ideals. Is there enough faith in the people to be able to decide their fates? Will the corruption found in all political systems keep this theoretical notion of government from coming into existence? Could such a system even be created?
Anybody want to start the Open Party?
--
Free.
Re:Online voting is racist? (Score:2)