Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prof. J. Alex Halderman Tells Us Why Internet-Based Voting Is a Bad Idea (Video)

Roblimo posted more than 2 years ago | from the paper-ballots-are-still-the-best dept.

Security 264

On March 2, 2012, Timothy wrote about University of Michigan Professor J. Alex Halderman and his contention that there is no way to have secure voting over the Internet using current technology. In this video, Alex explains what he meant and tells us about an experiment (that some might call a prank) he and his students did back in 2010, when they (legally) hacked a Washington D.C. online voting pilot project. This is, of course, a "professional driver on closed course; do not attempt" kind of thing. If you mess with voting software without permission, you might suddenly find the FBI coming through your door at 4 a.m., so please don't do it.

cancel ×

264 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not a "bad idea" (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325103)

No, it's a good idea with bad implementations, and little chance of those implementations improving. Using it for an actual election of consequence at this point would be bad. Let's not assume that everything that doesn't work in the foreseeable future is inherently bad, okay?

Re:Not a "bad idea" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325135)

No, it's a good idea with bad implementations, and little chance of those implementations improving. Using it for an actual election of consequence at this point would be bad. Let's not assume that everything that doesn't work in the foreseeable future is inherently bad, okay?

Like the importation of African slave labor! oh wait, nevermind.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325151)

The problem is that the cost of securing such a system (which has to be accessible to the general populace) is very very high compared to the cost of compromising such a system.

Anyway, I dislike any system where it is not mandatory to enforce the privacy of the voter. One of the main reasons we all have to go into a single person booth is to prevent someone who can *tell* how we voted influencing our vote. This could be as nasty as a someone with a crowbar or insidious as the patriarch of the family making his family vote in the same way.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325713)

But WHY would it be so expensive? See here is what I've never gotten, and maybe I'm missing something but we've had smart cards for a pretty damned long time, so why not use them? Put a 512bit key, one for each person in America and hand them out with a USB reader, one per household. This would also allow pretty much any library to be a voting booth as well for those that don't have net access. Hell you wanna get super duper secure hand out a live CD designed to be booted to and to run ONLY the program that connects with the smart card and offer a disc image that will let those of us with netbooks the ability to use a USB stick.

I don't think the problem is it can't be done, after all we got to the moon with computers less powerful than the average $10 cell phone, I think the real problems is to the PTBs having more people voting is a giant DO NOT WANT. After all if people could just push a button and vote, why then they might actually demand those petitions that the corrupt congress and POTUS just ignore actually be acted upon, that those that admit on national TV criminal acts like Dodd did actually be prosecuted, and that the will of the people actually be enacted. Why we couldn't have that now, could we? Why then their massive bribes would dry up and blow away like a fart on the breeze! The speculators and pigs on Wall Street getting rich off of misery, why they might actually have regulations enacted against them, the horror! What would have to the "job creators" and their massive offshoring paid for by the American taxpayers? Why to go against the will of the elite, you are talking sedition!

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326053)

Going to the moon was a hardware problem. This is software, and much more difficult.

Hmm, you never learn. Three words.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325165)

Separate but equal

Yes, a bad idea (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325191)

I'd argue that it's a fundamentally bad idea, for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with technology.

It's very simple: If you go to a polling place, you are in a situation where you can be observed by poll workers, who will notice things like somebody standing over your shoulder with either a gun or $10 to get you to vote the way that somebody wants you to. Whereas if you can vote anywhere, it's quite possible for an organization to do those sorts of things.

The same arguments also apply to voting by mail, or over the phone, or absentee ballots. For instance, it was not uncommon for political parties to stop by my grandmother's nursing home to help the residents vote, helpfully filling it out for the voter (including checking the boxes for their preferred candidates).

Re:Yes, a bad idea (4, Insightful)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325261)

I was going to suggest the less sinister issue with it, although along the same vein.

If all you have to do is log in and vote from your computer, a small "incentive" could seriously increase the voter turn out. Of course I'm referring to the incentive being provided by a company/party.

Right now, laziness is keeping the vast majority of uninformed dolts away from the ballot boxes. Utter hatred is keeping some informed ones home too but that's a different issue.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325395)

Right now, laziness is keeping the vast majority of uninformed dolts away from the ballot boxes. Utter hatred is keeping some informed ones home too but that's a different issue.

Utter hatred... of themselves? of democracy as a whole?

Because you're clearly not informed if you believe in democracy, but stay home as a protest against the available options. There's third-parties, write-ins, and deliberate ballot spoilage, all of which actually get counted. Staying at home doesn't.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326173)

I'm not one of them, I always vote. But to be perfectly frank spoiled ballots count about as much as the smiley face on a kindergarten assignment.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325407)

If all you have to do is log in and vote from your computer, a small "incentive" could seriously increase the voter turn out.

I don't see how that's really all that much different from mail-in and absentee ballots.

Right now, laziness is keeping the vast majority of uninformed dolts away from the ballot boxes

No it's not. The vast majority of uninformed dolts let a few informed political insiders pick which candidate to vote for, and then they happily go along with it as this method allows them to remain completely ignorant. We call it the Party System, and if you vote based solely on what your Party chooses then yes I'm talking directly to you.

Apathy and minor crimes which have been given Felony status are what is keeping most non-voters away from the polls.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325907)

Right now, laziness is keeping the vast majority of uninformed dolts away from the ballot boxes.

Leaving the bored senior citizens and motivated government union members...

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326135)

I didn't say it was a good system....

Let's be honest though, if you're too lazy to vote you're too lazy to form an opinion on who to vote for. The numbers would inflate and the best case scenario is that each existing interest would be able to lure in a proportionate number of the new voters.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325289)

These are technical problems, which require cryptographic solutions. It's not that hard to make a vote unverifiable by the voter. What's missing is mostly the will: the point of current e-voting systems is not to be secure. With enough determination and a few years of development these problems can be overcome.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (2)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325333)

He's talking about someone *standing over their shoulder*

How is that a technical problem?

How about having them log in and then voting for them? How is that a technical problem?

Re:Yes, a bad idea (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325457)

That already applies to postal voting, and so as a replacement for postal voting isn't an issue.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325551)

You're quite right on that front, but if we are talking about it as strictly a replacement for postal voting I have different non-technical problems with it (namely cost).

While the pilot test (the one that didn't happen due to the hacking) was intended for a postal replacement there was no question that the eye was on extending it for general use.

There will come a time when the postal system no longer exists and e-voting will be the way to go even just as a replacement for that. I'd say that day is no earlier than 15 years from now.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325871)

Postal voting takes effort relative to online voting which will discourage the sort of person who would sell their vote for a dollar.

I don't particularly like the current postal voting system as I get no feedback when I vote and thus zero idea if my vote was received never mind actually counted, but I still trust written records more than electronic.

For those saying this will be secure in the future...it will then become insecure in the future as well.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325937)

postal voting as just mail-in voting has the same problems as online voting would have.. it's just characters sent over the mail.

this is why if you're Finnish you'll have to haul your ass to the embassy to vote if you're abroad, this mandates same kind of voting process as if you were at a regular voting station.

though, it's amazing how many finnish wanabe new-democracy geeks totally miss the point about how you can no longer reasonably claim that you will have to vote in secrecy if you could do that with your computer from home. because it can't be an option to vote in secret, if it's an option your legs can be busted for you doing so, if it's an option you can choose to waive it for monetary benefits or for the 'right' to get to keep your job...

Re:Yes, a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326171)

As far as I know, everyone has access to the postal service.. Not everyone has access to the Internet.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325975)

As I have said, it's possible to make a cryptographic system where the votes are unverifiable to a third party. Give the voters a series of codes for every option, the guy standing over their shoulder will have no idea which code means what. Or have them submit one key of a pair, and encrypt their vote using the other one. The guy standing there again will have no idea whether the key they use to encrypt their vote fits the one they have submitted. It's not an unsolvable problem.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326083)

Yeah, you need to actually think before you post.

How are you getting them the codes? Telepathy?

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326139)

You can't have a secure voting system without at least one physical check, that's pretty obvious. You have to be able to verify the voter's identity.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325371)

This and the fact that having ONE website that is the receptacle of all ballots is probably going to draw a heck of a lot of efforts to break in. Not sure something like that *can be* secured.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325429)

not to forget the good o'll : x;update table votes set voted_for value 'x' where voted_for like 'y';

Re:Yes, a bad idea (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325605)

Physical voting isn't enough however. There were widespread allegations of vote rigging in the Russian elections for example with election officers tampering with the number of counted votes. If the whole system is corrupt then it will obtain the result it wants regardless of how the vote is conducted.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (5, Interesting)

yakovlev (210738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325609)

Absolutely. This was my first thought.

It's actually quite sinister when you consider that you can combine this with a Super PAC.

A Super PAC is an organization that can get unlimited amounts of money from corporations and has zero legal accountability to the candidate. This means it's perfectly possible for a Super PAC to offer to pay anyone $20 to vote (implied "for their candidate") then include some kind of browser plug-in that actually checks that the voter voted. If it's determined that this is illegal then the Super PAC goes down, but the candidate is squeaky clean. I'm sure they'd portray this as the internet equivalent of driving you to the polling place, though it's obviously much worse.

$20 per person x 300 million people = about 6 billion dollars to pay every man woman and child $20 to vote. It's probably a billion or two cheaper than that when you consider that children can't vote. This means it is well within the abilities of a well-funded Super PAC to offer $20 per vote (technically not necessarily for their candidate) to anyone who will take it.

All I've tried to describe above would likely be considered legal. If they wanted to step a little outside legal, the plug-in could "helpfully" fill out the vote form for the candidates they wanted you to vote for. A little less sinister would be to add a "default vote" or "Vote with Super PAC for Hope!" button to the ballot shown to the voter. Even if they said they would still pay you, some people would vote as directed for fear they would lose the money, and many would vote as directed because clicking the button or just pressing "VOTE" on the form as presented was easier than thinking about the issues. They could go even less sinister than that and just reorder the candidate listings on the ballot, such that their candidates were always on top.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325653)

A) No one is going to point a gun or threaten violence at a single person for a single vote. Ever. The only time that happens is in third-world countries where the entire population is threatened.

B) If someone is voting for a candidate because he/she was paid $10, how does voting in person stop that? No poll worker is going to notice the transaction since it will undoubtedly be made outside of the voting locale.

Your arguments against internet voting are idiotic and make no sense whatsoever.

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325751)

B) Because polling stations are set up so that nobody can tell who you voted for. Nobody is going to pay you $10 to change your vote if they can't verify you actually did it!

Re:Yes, a bad idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326049)

Ah, so then the argument is that these nefarious henchmen are going to station themselves at the home of every voter that they wish to bribe while they watch them click on the pre-selected candidate? Since one or two wouldn't turn the tide of an election, we're talking 10s of thousands of conspirators who must operate in absolute secrecy and keep quiet for the rest of their lives.

An argument against internet voting due to interference by aliens from another planet would make more sense.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (4, Insightful)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325231)

It's a BAD IDEA!

Every vote that doesn't occur in a supervised place can be sold, extorted, etc... That include correspondance voting, of course, but usually for small numbers unlikely to change the result.
The fact that the transmission is not reliable is nothing compared to the whole mess of distance voting.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (4, Insightful)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325345)

The big problem, unlike the story suggests, it's not security. It is the fact that you cannot guarantee that the vote is coming from whoever is registered. Anyone with a login and password can usurp your vote, so you'll never have a doubt free election ever again.

On the other hand, I do believe that you can design a secure system for voting, as long as you can guarantee that the machines were not tampered with.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325423)

why introduce machines, when you have litteraly centuries of debug and tuning for paper based voting ?

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325735)

Because referendum opponents usually cite the high costs attached to paper based voting as the main reason against direct democracy.

Online voting would enable many, many more elections per year, and let people vote on more fine grained issues than just "a party to represent me for the next 4 years". Many representative positions could be abolished completely when people could directly vote on everything.

Paper based voting and represetative democracy are solutions from hundred of years ago. The fact that they were the best solutions back then does not imply that they still are the best solutions today or in future.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326147)

The big problem, unlike the story suggests, it's not security. It is the fact that you cannot guarantee that the vote is coming from whoever is registered.

Your assert that the problem is "not security" -- however, your assertion would not be supported by the mainstream security community. That's because security professionals consider identity issues to be part of their domain. They understand that (from a practical viewpoint) access/storage/transport security is useless without identity security, so they insist that all must be part of a comprehensive solution. Thus, they insist on framing identity issues as security issues.

For example: the CA security model is, in part, designed to deal with the issue of identity.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (2)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326201)

Smart people have thought of how to do it already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s [youtube.com]

BUT to me this does not address one of the major requirements for a practical voting system: Convincing enough of the losers that they have lost. If you cannot convince the losers that you have lost you may end up with civil wars or riots. One of the main reasons for having such elections is so that people can choose leaders without having so much violence involved.

With a decent ballot box system with physical counts, you don't need to be a genius to know when you have lost fair and square (at least within acceptable levels of error/malice). They can see the votes being counted in front of their eyes and that they are losing most votes. And that the ballot boxes started empty and never moved from the room from the point the voting started till they ended and were sealed - all in front of observers (including them).

With the physical system cheating is done via postal votes, remote locations with few observers, and/or behind closed doors. If the counting is done secretly behind closed doors, you can be certain that massive scale cheating is going on.

With most forms of electronic voting it is harder to convince people that they have lost fair and square. Most popular forms of electronic voting are like "closed door" counts, and for that reason alone they should not be trusted nor used.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (3, Interesting)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325421)

Yup, it's definitely a bad idea. It also interferes with my idea of weighted ballots:

A series of (simple unambiguous) questions acompany the ballot.
During counting, the quiz is marked, and that vote is weighted using the result (you get one mark for turning up)

This way you're not disenfranchising anyone as their vote will count. It just means that people who understand what they're voting have a greater say as to what goes on. I'm sick to death of seeing knuckle dragging Neanderthals (who have voted the way their television told them to) have as much say as myself (if I don't understand what the vote is on, I'll make sure I read up on it).

Point in question: The alternative vote refurendum in the UK. The number of people I heard saying they'd vote no for completely false reasons was ridiculous. Fine, if you don't agree. Just make sure you know the facts first.

Online voting would just make it easier to cheat.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326179)

I suppose you don't remember why poll tests were a bad idea. Why should the vote of a wealthy land owner count more than that of a newly enfranchised former slave?

Re:Not a "bad idea" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325295)

True, it's not a bad idea, just like bubonic plague isn't a bad disease.

Because it's an ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE STUPENDOUSLY STUPID SHITTY IDEA.

As others have noted, it's all too easy to sell your vote when you do it remotely.

But there's also the factor of the effort it takes to go to a voting booth and vote weeds out disinterested morons from the voting process.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (3, Insightful)

errandum (2014454) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325381)

On the other hand it seems to be unable to weed out the highly motivated idiots. There are a whole lot of very brilliant people that I actually know that don't vote, simply because their vote does not matter. The blind idiots will outnumber you and decide the course of every single election.

If you stopped to think about it, you'd see it's true. It's the big flaw of the democratic system.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325837)

> It's the big flaw of the democratic system.

And what would be better? Having the self-procaimed "brilliant people's" votes weight more? Who would prevent then that those smart people tune the system in their favor and discriminate against the blind idiots?

> don't vote, simply because their vote does not matter.

Their vote absolutely matters, but they seem to be pissed that their vote doesnt matter _more_ than a blind idiot's vote. They seem to have a sense of entitlement that their one vote should weight as 100 blind idiot votes, so that the blind idiots cant outnumber them.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325877)

Or in the case of the USA, the not really democratic system.

Re:Not a "bad idea" (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325481)

"using current technology".

The title can't contain everything, that's why there's also a summary/intro.

No election is 100% secure (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325113)

Look at the current primaries for the Republican nomination.

When voter boxes would end up in the river or burned up with paper ballots, all you can do is have somebody proclaimed as the winner such as the example with Maine and Mitt Romney, but the idiots running the show behind the scenes claimed results caught by spam filter should had made Ron Paul the winner in many precincts that did not report data due to the "oops, results went to spambox"

Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (4, Insightful)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325123)

Why is Internet-based voting required anyway? Surely this is a great idea to get those basement dwellers out of the house at least once every four years. There are already systems in place to allow those confined to their homes due to medical circumstances to participate in their democracy. Whether it's done tomorrow or in 30 years time, people will still find ways to break the system. Net result? A colossal waste of money over something that is already in place and works as well as can be expected.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325141)

In the USA, we are lucky if a simple majority of people vote at all. Internet based voting might help with that, since it takes some of the effort out of voting.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325241)

In the USA, we are lucky if a simple majority of people vote at all. Internet based voting might help with that, since it takes some of the effort out of voting.

Actually that's a bug not a feature. Billions of dollars spent on election advertising (by people expecting to be rewarded after the election) and half the population is resistant enough (or intelligent enough) to not bother voting. I can't imagine the politicals being happy about those people being enfranchised, why instead of simple minded TV commercials they'd actually have to win them over using logic, or purchase their votes with programs, or ... How exactly do you control people without simpleminded emotional arguments anyway?

No the real feature is the death of democracy and replacement with feudalism. A "Large Enough" fraction of the population will be doing this online voting under the close eye of their supervisor at work, or their church pastor, or their professor at school, or maybe the landlord's office, or probation officer's office, or their spouse... It's kind of a stealth poll tax such that "the more important people" will be enforcing who votes for who.

Sure, it is true, that technically you can vote for anyone you want, with this new internet voting... all you need is no job or independently wealthy, atheist, non-student, property owner (as opposed to renter), clean criminal justice record, and be an orphan with no immediate family or friends. Everyone else has to vote for who the local alpha male says to vote for.

I can't say as its really going to change anything, because both parties are two sides of the same coin with different marketing messages.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (2)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325485)

> half the population is resistant enough (or intelligent enough)
or dumb enough. Even expressing (i.e. with some sort of "none of the above") that none of the options is good for you is a powerful message if in large enough numbers. Is not an "is ok what chooses everyone else", nor "anyway will win candidate x, no matter what i vote". Is not the same a president backed by 51% of the population of a country than one backed by the 26% because only 50% of potential voters cared about it (and in those people could have something rigging the sample, like some interest, or pressure, or getting some benefit, or, well, not being resistant/intelligent enough to empty political speech)

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326069)

or dumb enough. Even expressing (i.e. with some sort of "none of the above") that none of the options is good for you is a powerful message if in large enough numbers. Is not an "is ok what chooses everyone else", nor "anyway will win candidate x, no matter what i vote". Is not the same a president backed by 51% of the population of a country than one backed by the 26% because only 50% of potential voters cared about it (and in those people could have something rigging the sample, like some interest, or pressure, or getting some benefit, or, well, not being resistant/intelligent enough to empty political speech)

Have to find another example for "dumb" because "everyone knows" your description above is a waste of time in an entrenched two party system.

I'm not saying there exists no dumb reason not to vote, but your specific argument really didn't do it for me.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325245)

Internet based voting might help with that, since it takes some of the effort out of voting.

The effort in voting is not getting off the couch and hauling you fat, lazy ass to a polling station. Rather it is in educating yourself on issues, forming your own opinions on those issues, examining the candidates opinions of those issues, and then communicating with those candidates both by voting for your preferences and by maintaining a dialog with those actually elected to office. The Internet, like the telephone, television, newspaper, letter, and town hall gathering at a local library can help with that, and already does.

But "Internet voting" will help nothing.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325343)

The effort in voting is not getting off the couch and hauling you fat, lazy ass to a polling station. Rather it is in educating yourself on issues, forming your own opinions on those issues, examining the candidates opinions of those issues, and then communicating with those candidates both by voting for your preferences and by maintaining a dialog with those actually elected to office.

You've gotta be kidding. Its all about who looks better on TV, who is a better public speaker, who tells better lies, which 1%er passes himself off more like a 99%er, which candidate is compatible with my personal selection of imaginary man in the sky, and by far the most significant reason is to vote for the party your male ancestors supported, or depending on family dynamic and youthful rebelliousness, vote for the party your male ancestors did not support.

The other part is 90% of the population blindly follows either party right into hell, only the votes and beliefs of about 10% "swing voters" matter. So you've gotta be crazy enough to get the 45% of your party to nominate you (Palin, Santorum, heck practically every R after Reagan in my opinion) yet be normal enough to get the sane 10% swing voters fooled into voting for you. So its a multiple personality contest, the winner is the one who acts the nuttiest of the nuts to the 45% while simultaneously appearing normal to the 10%. That's about it.

Finally there's a large fraction of the sway voters who simply vote pocketbook... Am I happy today (got some from the wife, sports team won last night, etc) well then the incumbent wins. Am I unhappy today (wife made me sleep on couch, sports team lost last night, etc) well then the challenger wins. Probably 9% of the swing voters vote this way. Smart idea for the R to oppose contraception, no pill = no sex = unhappy 9% swing voters = incumbent fail

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325479)

I said the effort in voting is in educating yourself on issues, forming your own opinions on those issues, examining the candidates opinions of those issues, and then communicating with those candidates both by voting for your preferences and by maintaining a dialog with those actually elected to office.

I did not say that people do this, or in fact, put any effort into voting. I believe most people put no effort into voting.

I also believe that Internet voting will help nothing.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325823)

I believe most people put no effort into voting

You're disenfranchising their efforts from your personal list of "efforts".

On the other hand it is not intuitively obvious that Romney is a Mormon therefore X% of the population has been brainwashed as childred to hate him for his religion.

I suppose if you know the "modern google definition" of the frothy secretion known as Santorum, then I give you credit that it Could be Intuitively obvious that Santorum has serious issues wrt that whole subject.

It takes at least some minimal effort to figure out what political party Dad votes for and more effort to decide if you're of the proper age to be in or out of parental rebellion.

Self contemplation, for the masses, is actually pretty hard. That whole "rather die than think" thing that is so idolized.

I think you're excluding their actions from the category of effort, I don't see the point. They might be doing something dumb that has historically brought bad results, but that doesn't mean they're doing nothing...

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326065)

I don't see the point.

Internet based voting will not help.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325355)

We should enact Compulsory voting [wikipedia.org] like many other countries have. Show up or face a fine, and repeated offenses without a good excuse equate to jail time.

Before someone brings up the whole "freedom" thing, keep in mind that a lot of states (if not the entire country) have a lot of other compulsory things that are viewed as unsavory by some people, such as Selective Service, paying into Social Security, and mandatory car insurance. (I'm not saying that's a justification, but it sort of kills the whole "against freedom" argument IMO.)

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325615)

We should enact Compulsory voting [wikipedia.org] like many other countries have. Show up or face a fine, and repeated offenses without a good excuse equate to jail time.

Before someone brings up the whole "freedom" thing, keep in mind that a lot of states (if not the entire country) have a lot of other compulsory things that are viewed as unsavory by some people, such as Selective Service, paying into Social Security, and mandatory car insurance. (I'm not saying that's a justification, but it sort of kills the whole "against freedom" argument IMO.)

I live in a country with compulsory voting & being an anarchist I never vote; however I agree with the parent: compulsory voting gives meaning to not voting. It makes clear that voting is giving away your personal descision power to somebody who openly craves for power.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (0)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325625)

I donno why, but the wikipedia article carefully misses the most important reason to force all citizens to vote... If the government later does something you don't like, then you should not protest or riot or even complain about it in public, because being anything other than a perfect sheep makes you a sore loser and you should just vote for someone else next time. There is no excuse that you're "not being represented" because you were forced to vote, just like everyone else, so theoretically you selected your representation, right?

Also it is good PR for the only legitimate regime change being scheduled and carefully controlled elections, absolutely not alternatives ranging from recall petitions and calls for impeachment all the way up to armed rebellion. Its kind of cheesy at this goal and traditionally does not work, at least in the 3rd world.

A side issue also carefully not discussed is I am not bound by the US Constitution, despite my very low /. UID I certainly never signed it, that's for sure. I'm not saying I hate it or its icky, I actually kind of like it, mostly, just that it has no moral or ethical jurisdiction over me because I never agreed to it. This worldview gets some statist types all wound up, who gave me permission to have an open mind, etc etc. Putting some mandatory voting amendment into it with traditionally draconian punishments which I would probably have to follow for pragmatic reasons, legitimatizes the rest of my relationship to the Constitution, because most of the rest of the Constitution I can frankly ignore, I'm probably never going to be a government agent with a moral responsibility to follow the 1st amendment, blah blah blah, but an amendment forcing me to vote would certainly be a kick in the pants every two years or so (assuming it would be federal elections only, not my local dogcatcher election).

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325869)

I can't believe people still keep bringing this up. It's amazing that some people ACTUALLY believe that forcing completely politically uninformed people to pick a name on a list will make democracy better. Compulsory Voting only works if you can also somehow force everyone to educate themselves about the choices and GIVE A DAMN about who they pick. Otherwise 90% of the "forced" voters are just going to pick a random name or nullify their vote (your countries elections are non-traceable RIGHT?). And you better hope your country doesn't always have the candidates in the same order, cause a large majority of the "forced" voters that don't nullify their vote will just pick the first one on the list, wait and see how THAT screws with the percentages!

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (2, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325385)

I would assume that if a person can take a few minutes out of one day a year to travel to a voting station and place a vote, that they will at least have some idea of what is on the ballet and what they are voting for. If a person can vote online without having to even bother going to the effort to leave their house, then I think there's a good chance more "random" voting will occur, or at least votes placed with even less consideration of the issues or actual candidate.

I'm not saying that sort of totally uninformed voting isn't going on already, but that it would get even worse.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325305)

Why is Internet-based voting required anyway? Surely this is a great idea to get those basement dwellers out of the house at least once every four years.

My idea for Internet-based voting, and the future for democracy in general, is to get those slimy, black-holes to money, brain dead puppets out of senate/congress/... When you can make voting for the masses, simple, fast, reliable and easy, the need for 'representatives' disappears.
Power to the people!
I did say future democracy, much is needed to make that possible. But it should be the end-goal for any democracy. And that's why we should keep looking into it, finding solutions to problems. The voting system itself would probably be the easiest of those challenges.
Adapting society so that everyone has the time to inform themselves about new propositions, laws, ... and educating the public so it isn't influenced to easily by media and propaganda, that's a much harder challenge.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325377)

Paper-based voting is not perfect either, and frauds do happen. And it's not a waste of money, as software development is relatively cheap, and the main purpose of online voting is to cut the costs of elections to a fraction. Money will be saved in the long run.

Re:Another bad solution to an imaginary problem... (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325849)

Which was kind of my point, though admittedly not conveyed clearly enough (d'oh). Electoral fraud already exists by mail, so Internet elections simply replicate the problem through a different medium. And the thing is, until Internet access is 100% accessible to all, mail remains a better standard for proxy voting.

Unless, of course, you use the Internet as a means of taking the population ever closer to that 100% adoption/access rate, in which case there are probably better ways of achieving this than through elections which do not occur regularly enough.

TLDW; (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325149)

Too Long Didn't Watch; I don't watch video in general. People who can't express themselves in words certainly can't express themselves in video either.

I would assume a much simpler and cheaper and safer way to corrupt internet voting is to internet vote under the watchful eye of your supervisor at work, or the watchful eye of your head of household at home, or maybe your local church could provide internet access to vote, or ... You could work around that bug by bringing internet access to the local elementary school gymnasium (they've probably already got wifi like our schools), placing some superannuated citizens in charge of what to them is incomprehendible technology (in other words anything newer than IBM unit record apparatus from pre-1930), maybe replacing those complicated internet kiosks with a simple paper form and pencils and an instantly reading/verifying optical scanner.. oh wait thats exactly what we have now where I live. Hmm. Sounds like a big waste of money for everyone except the people getting the money... who happen to be campaign donors.. Oh, I see whats happening here.

Way too early (0)

Joe U (443617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325155)

If you mess with voting software without permission, you might suddenly find the FBI coming through your door at 4 a.m., so please don't do it.

It's always 4am or some other idiotic hour. I know it's to intimidate, but seriously, after a while it wears off. Just start arresting people after breakfast.

While I'm on this subject, who came up with the idea of sending 25 armed agents and a small tank to get some geek out of their basement? Heck, for some of these guys you could just write a note, 'report to jail tomorrow and drop your computer off on the way there' and they would do it.

Re:Way too early (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325193)

While I'm on this subject, who came up with the idea of sending 25 armed agents and a small tank to get some geek out of their basement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT#History [wikipedia.org]

Heck, for some of these guys you could just write a note, 'report to jail tomorrow and drop your computer off on the way there' and they would do it.

Paramilitary police is not about arresting people, it is about keeping the population terrified of the government. The point is to show people that the government can send a tactical team into any home at any time, so that people will be afraid to take a stand against the government.

Re:Way too early (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325419)

Paramilitary police is not about arresting people, it is about keeping the population terrified of the state. The point is to show people that the state can send a tactical team into any home at any time, so that people will be afraid to take a stand against the state.

(FTFY)

Governments change, the state is eternal.

Re:Way too early (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325451)

Don't forget profit and courtroom drama.

Profit is obvious. Courtroom drama is the perp must be guilty because the cops felt like sending 25 cops in riot gear and smashed all the house windows... If the cops just called his lawyer and asked him to talk, he must not be an absolutely guilty supercriminal.

Had a SWAT callout 5 houses to the west of mine some months ago... parole violator got drunk (thats a no no for a multi-time DUI guy) went to friends house, passed out alcohol intoxication. Friend owns a deer hunting rifle and was dumb enough to tell the cops looking for the drunk about it, so we get full swat team callout, smash all the windows and stick cameras in, including one of those tossed ball camera things. Streets blocked off, TV news told BS story about man barricaded in house with gun so we've got newsies crawiling everywhere. The cops got to do the judge jury executioner thing by tasing an semi-conscious drunk guy. This is all OK because "we're tough on crime in this rich suburban city". Lots of people made a lot of money, and the parole violator is back in a for profit prison again, the families (especially children like mine) were terrified, so its all good all around. Seriously SWAT doesn't mean anything anymore.

Re:Way too early (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325749)

Paramilitary police is not about arresting people, it is about keeping the population terrified of the government. The point is to show people that the government can send a tactical team into any home at any time, so that people will be afraid to take a stand against the government.

So, then, wouldn't it be every citizen's patriotic duty to make certain that, every once in a while, a couple of these SWAT teams never make it back to their van, just to make sure that the government remains in fear of We the People?

Strat

Idea.. (3, Funny)

backslashdot (95548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325179)

Is it really a bad idea? This is just the opinion of some researchers, so why don't we vote on it online and see?

Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (5, Insightful)

ArcSecond (534786) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325219)

I like them. I trust them. They are their own record. And, if you like, you can spoil them.

In Canada, we have our ballots counted within hours of the polls closing. And you can go back and re-count them if necessary.

Keep it simple!

Re:Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (2)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325379)

One word:

Russia.

Re:Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325603)

You must understand that in the United States, elections are so corrupt that Fidel Castro once offered to send Cuban election observers to Florida. Proof the old man has a sense of humor!

Re:Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325977)

what about russia? electronic voting would be better there?

I think russians remember why it's not a good idea to keep a track record of what everyone voted...

Re:Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (1)

ReverendDG (1627147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325503)

i like electronic, you can't fuck it up like paper.
i've had to do ballots over because i just didn't fill the oval, "just right".

or the shitty ballot reader didn't work, in fact i've had to wait over an hour to do something that takes 20 mins max, because kansas has shitty ballot readers.
in the end i did it on electronic and it took me less time to do it.
so yeah, paper is great if it doesn't fail, electronic is less frustrating to do though.

Re:Two words: PAPER BALLOTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325657)

... providing you go to the right polling station!

Posted by Roblimo on Monday March 12 (-1, Offtopic)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325249)

from the who-has-time-to-watch-a-fucking-video dept.

Get a transcript and post that, or don't bother posting anything.

Internet voting not the real problem... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325325)

... the media and schools that keep the public purposely uninformed. As long as corporate media can do as they please voting either on the internet or off doesn't mean a lot.

Weakest link (4, Interesting)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325331)

I've always thought the whole issue is pretty clear. Internet voting can never be any more secure than it's weakest link...the end users browser/computer/device. In other words it can never be secure. As far as I'm concerned it's a total non-starter for this reason.

Re:Weakest link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326115)

Good for internet voting then, that your thoughts are incorrect.
(see e.g. code voting on why the device needn't be the weakest link, see "steal this vote!" by Gumbel for some perspective on what weak links are).

Paper voting is not safe (5, Insightful)

Sqreater (895148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325347)

The assumption is always that paper ballot voting is secure. Electronic fraud is somehow more important than paper ballot fraud. President Kennedy wasn't even a legitimate President according to some due to paper ballot fraud and they have a good case. See the "Controversies" section of the Wikipedia article on the 1960 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960 [wikipedia.org] . No, the whole controversy over the safety of voting is just a reason not to do what is required by a belief in Democracy and what is absolutely necessary in a period of time which illustrates the obsolescence of the old system. The Macroparasites have taken control of our system of government and true electronic democracy is the only way we will get power back into our hands. As for the safety of electronic voting, let me say this: It is safe to do internet banking; it is safe to transfer trillions of dollars of assets around the world daily; but it is somehow not safe to cast a single vote electronically . I don't believe that is the truth. And those who argue against electronic Democracy are merely the familiars of the Macroparasites.

Re:Paper voting is not safe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325589)

Some didn't consider Kennedy "legitimate" because he was Catholic and searched for any excuses to say he wasn't "the real president" sort of like how some freaks still go on about Obama not being born in America and therefor not "the real president". The Kennedy conspiracy kooks are just the 60s versions of birthers, bro.

Re:Paper voting is not safe (2)

madro (221107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326191)

Internet (ok, electronic) banking has different, independent stakeholders verifying the validity of transactions with armies of accountants armed with IS systems that have been around for decades.

Electronic democracy does not.

But... (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325357)

"Traditional" voting is as insecure as e-voting, if not more. All it takes is money.

Re:But... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325663)

Both are insecure, but how much it is needed to exploit them in critical numbers? For some Bush election in 2000 was a case, and probably latest russian elections are a good sample too. But how much easy for those in the (local? federal?) government to put something in the middle to rig an internet election? Or to do a worm like stuxnet, meant to change the votes sent instead of sabotage nuclear installations.

Re:But... (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326017)

if you got enough money to buy out everyone in the process and volunteering at the polling stations.. well good for you. it's going to take a lot more of money and involve a lot more people than affecting some counting station computer with the money.

traditional method - where you go to a polling station, and vote in secrecy, guarantees that even if you have money and bribe everyone who goes to vote you can't verify what they specifically voted - if they're at home and can take proof of what they voted for, then they can be coerced to vote in in specific way by their boss, their lover, their wife, by their parents, by the social security worker... that is the real problem and can't be technically solved either.

either way if you're in russia you're going to be fucked.

Internet voting and more in Estonia explained (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325393)

Internet voting and more in Estonia explained here [slashdot.org] .

fbi thru the door? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325467)

Because they sure been doing such a smashing job lately with election integrity.
fbi thru the door at 4 AM is a joke.
We would have already heard about many elections officials arrested.
But the score since 2000 is 3 to zip. three stolen elections to zero integrity

Nonsense (2)

Identita (1256932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325493)

Online voting can and will become the norm in the future. Like anything else we do in our lives, implementation is key and the only thing between success and failure. Perhaps the good professor should look at this: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/provincialelection/article/1059558--internet-voting-in-advance-polls-a-great-success-in-markham-report-finds [thestar.com]

Uh... this is DC. (3, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325547)

So, I live in DC.

The result quoted in the summary, that DC didn't manage to pull off a secure electronic vote, shouldn't be interpreted as a condemnation of e-voting, for the simple reason that this city couldn't manage to find the exit to a paper bag with a map and GPS. The incompetence around here is hilarious: there's a reason everyone working for the government lives in either Maryland or northern Virginia, since being in DC itself just means you get to hear sirens 24/7.

Everyone's heard of Marion Barry, the crack-smoking mayor? Turns out they elected him mayor again right away when he got out of prison. He mismanaged the city finances so badly that Bill Clinton cut him off from a lot of his authority, and he flounced* from the mayorship -- and got elected to the City Council. Since then he's gone eight years without paying income taxes, driven drunk, and embezzled money. Now he wants to run for mayor again.

The guy is a complete scumbag. The Washington Post said "To understand Washington, you have to understand Marion Barry."

*Flounce: To leave after a post (on the internet) where you proclaim yourself a martyr, with great drama

Voting is flawed (4, Interesting)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325575)

Even the current system isn't correct. The Republican Party holds voting accuracy as near sacred as part of their party talking points. Take a look at how they handled a primary season where they should have absolute control over the rules:
* Iowa went from Romney to Santorum, though a statistical tie, because someone mistyped a 2 as 22: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/01/18/rick-santorum-might-have-actually-won-the-iowa-caucuses [usnews.com]
* Maine almost didn't even count a whole county: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/maines-miscount-one-county-might-be-included-after-saturday/ [go.com]
* Nobody can seem to make up their minds on what to do about Florida. It is supposed to be, normally, a winner take all state. It moved its primary up and got sanctioned by the party by having its delegates cut in-half. Also, it may or may not be proportional. We'll find out in August: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/26/2610390/fight-looms-over-fla-delegates.html [miamiherald.com]
* Missouri has two elections this year. The first doesn't county, but everyone is assuming it will. The one that was held already was state mandated, but the state Republicans, not wanting to lose half their delegates, have decided that one won't count. They'll have a second one that will really count. Note : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/missouri-primary-2012-explained_n_1257817.html [huffingtonpost.com]
* She was allowed to vote once it was all sorted out, but an 84-year-old was initially told she was dead when she appeared at the polls: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/03/07/84-year-old-fall-river-woman-tries-to-vote-told-shes-dead/ [cbslocal.com]

My apologies to any Republicans I offended with these results. I only used these examples as they are near immediate in time scale.

The current voting system is full of flaws. It has been full of flaws. It will likely remain full of flaws. No need to worry about hackers mucking up an election when a typo can swing an election, and never have gotten caught if someone didn't post an image to FaceBook. So I don't see on-line voting as some type of corrupting influence on a pristine system.

The problem I see here is in the oversight. Considering it took two days for Washington D.C. to notice, I would say the real problem was not so much that the system got hacked, but D.C. didn't care enough about the election to monitor it as it was going on. The same lackluster oversight could still swing *cough*Iowa*cough* a close election.

Voting over internet can be secure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325633)

First, don't use html, browser based voting. Something like this could have a chance. Write a vote gathering program that uses current best practices to secure it, encrypt at the client, send securely to a host, pass it through a few firewalls to a protected processing environment. Write a program for municipalities that lets them input ballots and generate the vote gathering program. Enlist operating system and security vendors to check the vote gathering program for problems. You might need another level of user authentication from public records or possibly banks. You do have to change what the election department does as far as validating the vote. You can't make anything 100%. And in my brief off, the top of my head rant I missed quite a few things that need to be checked. Security researchers will always be able to find holes or potential threats, that's their job. It does not have to be perfect. It has to be dependable, easy and have some way of being audited. I have worked at election sites. If the election people chose to expose the problems with our current system, it might change the professors opinion on whether or not electronic voting its a good idea for democracy.

It is not internet the problem.. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325641)

...but the whole idea of ANONYMOUS voting. Common people, anonymous??? Was not this made a bad word? And just think about, if all the voting is made PUBLIC, then there would not be any chance for false votes, as anyone, at anytime could check and confirm his vote. And as we are grown adults, it is really good to know that your neighbor voted for this "^%$%^$%^$^%$%", and take the appropriate measures of course.....in the good sense of the word of course, and the legal too, and lawful too..

Thus why I dont trust "professors" to be experts. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325677)

Honestly, is this Professor an expert in computer and internet security? He is telling me that it is 100% impossible which is a highly uneducated answer.

Or does he mean there is no way to do it that will allow the game playing and fudging the current player have enjoyed for decades? That would be more likely.

I could certainly make a system that is significantly hack resistant, and if you did not have anything live on the net until the morning of election you limit the ability for people to attack and find holes.

Multiple layer system. local district servers that only respond to packets from that district,'s ISPs. if you are a "absentee voter" you would have had to submit a request to vote from outside your district. Those report to region servers and up to state servers. Servers are cheap. The whole path from the district is encrypted and stored locally. To verify they take the transmitted results and compare it with the stored result. a manual verification can be done by asking registered voters to input their 22 digit code. the code they got from voting is a hash that contains their info, time they voted, and their vote with a salt chosen just before the polls open.

It can be secured, far more secured than the current voting system where anyone can go in without a photo id and vote.

The problem is that the powers in control do not want it. IF you make it very easy to vote, more will vote. And the elderly rich white Christians dont want that to happen. if 50% of the minorities out there went out to vote they would outnumber the typical voting class 3 to 1.

Re:Thus why I dont trust "professors" to be expert (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39326047)

you could make a hack resistant system at their end, but then you'd be only using that system just as a vote counter...

btw. your manual verification system would turn the whole western voting system on it's head. "come here to redeem your vote-slip for cash".

first thing usa should do would be to move voting to happen on sundays though.

Completely nonsense, technology issues are details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325681)

Maybe in USA seemed a good idea. Anyone who lives in Italy knows (and not only in Italy, I think) that the "market of the votes" has always (and is) thriving.
Electronic voting just enables vote's buyers, to check if their money have been well spent: it is enough to sit side by side the voters.
I'm pretty sure that such a system can just make easy to export this miserable system that supports oligarchies and criminal liasons.

Thumb prints, punch cards and justice that cares (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325699)

I saw a clip recently how an Islamic country has combined paper card ballots with thumb prints. I think with that combo there is no room for BS as long as the people push the government to care enough to fairly scrutinize the votes in suspicious situations.

Another bad idea: video as a SlashDot post (3, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325757)

Another bad idea: video as a SlashDot post. Seriously - we're too busy to watch this. Get it down to a paragraph we can scan while we're waiting for something to connect, something to compile or a minion to find an answer for us and maybe.

ron paul supports it for the same reason (1)

ronpaulisanidiot (2529418) | more than 2 years ago | (#39325817)

this method keeps the less desirable voters from voting, and allows the better ones to ensure their voices are heard. and since there is no physical paper trail, it allows for the numbers to be discarded completely and substituted with better numbers if that better suits the will of those in power.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39325941)

Of course it could be secure. It just can't be secure *and* secret. So get rid of the secret part. Post all the votes along with names. Fraud goes away. Participation goes up. People who abuse the information are prosecuted just like anyone else who discriminates.

The Robinson Method of Voting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39326029)

solves all these problems, costs very little, is secure, gives instant results, and is practically fraud proof (depending on the number of people who bother to observe (i.e. video) polling throughout the day.

It's a solution to ALL election fraud.
Read about it here:

http://paul-robinson.us/index.php?blog=5&title=the_robinson_method_a_really_simple_way_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Instant results. No fraud. Huge savings in money and time. Ballot boxes in public view at ALL times, from the beginning of the election when they are empty, to the end of the election, when the winner will be clearly visible to all, the minute the final vote has been cast.

Electronic voting was only brought in so that the FRAUD would be easier.

Ask your representative what they think about the Robinson Method - if they tell you they are against it, you can work out what they believe about democracy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?