×

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!

Validating Voters For Open Source Governance, In Person

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the knock-knock-it's-the-neighbors dept.

Government 214

An anonymous reader writes "As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance to collaborative and open source governance, some interesting new issues arise. The biggest is usually user authentication: how can we avoid sock-puppets and spammers from overtaking the voting process? Enter the concept of the streetwiki, an ingenious system for having humans validate their physical neighbors. Bleeding-edge social organization meets ancient validation protocol."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

Seeing more of my neighbors? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40960939)

But I do my best to avoid them, they're terrible people!

Re:Seeing more of my neighbors? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961369)

Black women are physically ugly. They also have a severe, bitchy "I grew up in boot camp" attitude.

It is not hard to understand why black men prefer white women.

Re:Seeing more of my neighbors? (-1, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961565)

It is not hard to understand why black men prefer white women

duh! white chicks have bigger mouths and give better head

This is basically how US elections work (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40960947)

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be).. however, you do have to announce your name and address out loud to the election official at the poll before they let you sign in. (some people find this weird.. you're working the polls, and people come in and just show you their sample ballot or ID, and you tell them.. gotta say it out loud)..

The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (5, Insightful)

wulfmans (794904) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961177)

Sorry, everybody should show ID to vote. You need ID to open a bank account, get insurance. buy booze. hell you even need ID to go to an Obama rally. Gimme a break.
getting an ID should be FREE. So everybody can have one.
Oh...... unless your an illegal person here who CANNOT legally vote anyway.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961341)

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961413)

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Uh, until you stop being ignorant why don't you just let the adults speak on this?

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Now these are facts. Maybe you really hate them and can't stand they are true. They are true anyway - get over yourself. I would LOVE to have state-issued photo ID required to vote. It would be great. Photo IDs are very low cost. If you simply cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so then you have bigger problems.

The only people who are against this are 1) racists who think just because you're black or Hispanic that you cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so, 2) people who want to commit voter fraud, 3) Democrats who benefit from voter fraud, or 4) well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe that photo ID requirements would ever disenfranchise anyone. You see, none of these are valid.

Like so many good ideas that we should already be doing, the people who oppose this have no factual reason. Just pure emotion. They don't like something so they think none of the facts are worth investigating. Sigh. Maybe a country full of people like this deserves to fail. Maybe those of us with some sense who understand basic things like the importance of honest elections should find another country to relocate to and let the emotional non-thinkers reap what they sow.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (5, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961489)

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting

That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Good thing I wouldn't have to guess, if you would provide a citation.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961511)

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting

That's the kind of claim that needs a citation.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Good thing I wouldn't have to guess, if you would provide a citation.

From reading Slashdot, one would think that its users have no internet connection and cannot perform a Google search.

If you want to be spoon-fed maybe this isn't the right place for you?

Re:This is basically how US elections work (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961725)

Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence. Now I realize you probably hold every other poster in contempt, otherwise you wouldn't make such a claim and then evade your responsibilities. But I hope you never imagine that you didn't show yourself for who you truly are.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961805)

Whether it's Slashdot or anywhere else, it is the responsibility of the one making a claim, in particular an extraordinary one, to provide the evidence.

Citation please. No, really. Prove that this is always true ("slashdot or anywhere else") with no exceptions. That's your responsibility, right?

See the way I look at it, is that this is not a formal paper. This is an informal discussion. If I were writing a formal paper, you betcha I'd have citations everywhere. I would be quite thorough. But this isn't a formal paper. You're not my professor. I'm sorry if it offends your self-importance but I'll speak any way I like in an informal setting.

You want to talking about responsibility? If anything I say interests you because it may or may not be true, or for any other reason, you are free to accept my post as a pointer to a new subject. But not for me, you may not have realized that this subject interested you one way or the other. You're welcome. You can use that as a springboard to do your own reading in your newfound interest, and see for yourself if your own research tells you what mine told me. Then you'd actually understand it and anyone could take seriously your opinions concerning it. You would, after all, have bothered to inform yourself prior to forming an opinion.

Or you can whine that I'm not spoon-feeding you as though you were either two years old, or you were my professor. You are neither. Don't expect me to pretend and you'll save yourself a lot of disappointment.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961911)

You can spin this any way you want, but the fact is you made an absurd claim, and now it turns out, when you boil away all that faux petulance, you don't have the balls to either back up your claim or admit you cannot.

And yes, my immoral' cowardly friend, it's always the obligation of someone making a claim to provide evidence.

Or, in shorter words, you're a ball-less lying sack of shit.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (3, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961923)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-10/pew-study-inaccurate-voter-registration-rolls/53083406/1 [usatoday.com]

it's not what the op claimed, but it isn't exactly refuting it either. I like how they even point to 106% of the last census (less then 2 years ago) being registered to vote in one Ohio county. At first glance, you might think well, that's only 6% over, but think of the children or the lack of children for it to be that simple.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (3, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962079)

It is a far cry from what the previous poster claimed. The fact that voter rolls are not purged is not the same as fraudulent votes being cast.

Recall the 2000 election in Florida, with over-zealous purging of the rolls to eliminate potential felons ("similar names"). You can go too far in either direction without an agenda.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40962137)

You need to read that article pretty carefully to catch what they're talking about. There is a big problem in deciding what to do about the population of a university. As far as the US census is concerned a student is counted in the location of the university. However, depending on what state you're talking about, that student may or may not be allowed to register to vote in the location of the university. For example, in Williamsburg, VA the population of the College of William and Mary is counted as part of the population of Williamsburg according to the US census. But in the eyes of the state of Virginia, those students are not allowed to vote in Williamsburg. This caused quite a stir because the university population is overwealmingly NOT Republican. The Republicans control the state and out of fear were unable to do the right thing and let the students vote where they're counted in the census. The crazy part about this is that because the census numbers are used in determining the number and location of representatives' districts, students in the college are being used to swell the district and make the representative of that district more powerful than he should be.
 
https://acluva.org/1260/aclu-offers-assistance-to-william-and-mary-students-barred-from-registering-to-vote-in-local-elections/

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961529)

Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"

Could it be that you're just repeating some lie you heard? And that you're too stupid to even make the mental connection necessary to realize that it is completely impossible for that claim to be factual?

In all honesty, you disgust me. You talk all big and smart, condescending to those "well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe" things, when the truth is you have the mental acuity of a dog, and like all good dogs, you're just doing what your master tells you. You were blessed at birth with the ability to reason. Don't let that gift go to waste.

So prove it (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961693)

Interesting. How is it, exactly, that you know that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrats? Given the fact that, as you surely know, US elections use a secret ballot. Come on, tell us! How the fuck could you know who these "dead people" are voting for??"

Good point. You just illustrated the problem with ballot security. There's no way to know whether dead people are voting, pr for whom. Therefore, we can all surely agree that ballot security is a good idea, right?

If you think that the grandparent is just a racist thug, then there's only one way to prove him wrong: IDs for voters. And he is right about one thing - everybody has a picture ID. For Chrissakes, a picture ID is required to get a job, and I'm pretty sure it's required to get government benefits, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be on one or the other.

I have to say, it is worth questioning why some groups are dead-set against IDs for voters, considering that it would disenfranchise virtually no one. It's reasonable to question who benefits from ID-less elections, and that it's likely the same ones who are dead-set against requiring IDs. Doesn't require a genius to make that connection.

Seriously, if I need an ID to drive a car and get a job, shouldn't Democracy be worth preserving by simply maintaining its sanctity? If we have to make gov issued IDs free to take away the excuse, then do it.

Re:So prove it (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961835)

"ID for voters" is common-sense, you want to ensure voters are eligible. OTOH attaching the ID to a particular vote destroys the secret part in what is supposed to be a secret ballot. The inked finger (as used in Iraq) is another good way to ensure people don't vote more than once, but stained fingers do nothing to confirm their eligibility to vote.

Re:So prove it (1)

zeugma-amp (139862) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961969)

"ID for voters" is common-sense, you want to ensure voters are eligible. OTOH attaching the ID to a particular vote destroys the secret part in what is supposed to be a secret ballot.

I don't believe that is what the OP was talking about. The ID is to be able to get the ballot. The ID# is not attached to the ballot at that point.The ballot itself is still secret, but we've validated that the person casting it is eligible to do so.

The inked finger (as used in Iraq) is another good way to ensure people don't vote more than once, but stained fingers do nothing to confirm their eligibility to vote.

Personally, I'm all for that as well.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961859)

Oh by the way, you're a nigger and spiteful, self-serving sack of shit of an excuse for a human being who loves to use excessive hyperbole and invective to make up for your own tiny penis, inability to use reason, and general fear of how other people perceive you in real life when you cannot hide behind a pseudonym.

You are pathetic and shallow and the pattern of your posts tends to confirm it. You contribute nothing. You merely get offended and tell people how wrong they are. You are a parasite and a waste of bandwidth.

You secretly fear the idea that you may one day have to face all of the negativity you have directed at others. It will be in accumulated form since you never worked to resolve any of it while you had the chance. Just keep condescending, complaining, insulting, and taking everything to extremes. That will make it all better.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (3, Insightful)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961853)

And when the IDs are free and don't require any time to get them, then you can require photo IDs. At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

It's quite simply a way of discouraging the poor, elderly and minorities from voting for political reasons. If there's evidence of significant levels of voter fraud then the GOP has the duty to report it so that the individuals can be prosecuted. They don't because they can't.

Uh, until you stop being ignorant why don't you just let the adults speak on this?

Right now in the USA there are close to 3 million dead people who are registered to vote and voting.

Dead, deceased, buried and/or cremated people. Voting. Close to 3 million .. that we know about.

You'll never, ever guess which party they overwhelmingly vote for. That's right... Democrats.

Now these are facts. Maybe you really hate them and can't stand they are true. They are true anyway - get over yourself. I would LOVE to have state-issued photo ID required to vote. It would be great. Photo IDs are very low cost. If you simply cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so then you have bigger problems.

And of COURSE no one who's willing to commit voter fraud would be willing to do something so shocking as obtaining a fake ID. Only teenagers that want to get into bars or buy alcohol would do that.

And even if an ID were to cost $10 (in my state it's $25) it would also require taking a trip to town/city hall or a DMV/RMV which depending on where you are and how busy it is, may require the better part of a day waiting in line. For someone that's working two jobs or more (say two full time and a part time job) that may be a real hardship.

The only people who are against this are 1) racists who think just because you're black or Hispanic that you cannot afford $10 every 5 years or so, 2) people who want to commit voter fraud, 3) Democrats who benefit from voter fraud, or 4) well-meaning liberals who sincerely and completely wrongly believe that photo ID requirements would ever disenfranchise anyone. You see, none of these are valid.

While we're at it, let's try to defray the costs of the election by requiring each voter to chip in a few bucks when they put their ballot in the box. Surely everyone can afford $1 per election, right? There's nothing wrong with that [wikipedia.org], right?

Like so many good ideas that we should already be doing, the people who oppose this have no factual reason. Just pure emotion. They don't like something so they think none of the facts are worth investigating. Sigh. Maybe a country full of people like this deserves to fail. Maybe those of us with some sense who understand basic things like the importance of honest elections should find another country to relocate to and let the emotional non-thinkers reap what they sow.

I can think of other alternatives. One such alternative would be to send everyone a ballot through the mail in a nondescript envelope (basically expanding the existing absentee ballot process to everyone) and requiring them to fill in the ballot at the polling place. This would be easier if election day was a federal holiday and/or employers were required by law to allow workers time off to vote. Now true, people who are willing to commit voter fraud may also be willing to commit mail fraud ... but if the envelopes are nondescript, the person committing the voter and mail frauds would need to intercept all the mail, and that's more likely to be noticed.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (1, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962011)

At the moment there's no evidence that voter fraud, as in people pretending to be other people, is common enough to justify disenfranchising other voters. The GOP trots that out whenever they lose a close race, but the fact is that they have yet to show that there's any greater likelihood for one candidate or another to win based upon voter fraud or for it to of substantial volume.

The flip side of this is that, given the current laws that actively prevent any sort of voting security, it would be virtually impossible to prove voter fraud if it was occurring.

getting an ID should be FREE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961345)

Should be, could be, isn't...

That's at least a part of the reason it can be argued that ID is an unacceptable burden for those in the lowest income bracket, especially if they're living in a rural area and have to travel to get ID AND to vote.

If I show up to the precinct where I'm registered, with or without an ID, and I know my registered name and address, and my signature matches the one on my card, then I HAVE reasonably authenticated myself.

That's why there are so few cases of voter fraud against individual voters. It's not worth the time, the effort or the risk to try to falsely register, show up at all the various locations and try to remember your various identities in order to carry cast a few fraudulent ballots.

It's far more likely that GOP staffers will try to game the system as they did recently in Michigan [michigan.gov].

Paper and manual: inefficient, hard to defraud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961845)

And this is precisely the problem with many of the electronic systems. With the current scheme, clunky and manual, it is very difficult to do a mass fraud. Sure.. I can send a few dozen folks in to claim they're someone else, or suborn one member of the 3-4 board at most precincts, but to do a massive fraud requires compromising a lot of people, and the odds that NONE of them will blow the whistle is just too high.

Start going to a "swipe your id here" and "collect votes by modem", and now, you only need to suborn a couple people: the guy who builds the validity database, for instance.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961191)

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

Translation... This poster supports voter fraud and thinks it is unreasonable to come up with any likely way to prevent such things.

There are many calls about voter ID being racist. It must suck for those people who think so to see SO much racism in their life. Such as at the public library, federal buildings, the airport, driver licenses, the bank, getting a job, and on and on. The people who claim such laws are racists or wrong purely support voter fraud and are not ashamed to admit it. Perhaps one day we can live in a world where reasonable people are no longer called racists by extremists who think breaking the law should be easily enabled by the government.

define:racist (1, Funny)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961225)

Oh it has nothing to do with identity. It has to do with politics.

It's truly unfortunate, but the word "racist" has developed two distinct and separate definitions. Only one of them has anything to do with race.

Racist (n)
1) Someone who unfairly dislikes or discriminates based on race. May or may not be a white male discriminating against a black person. May be a black person discriminating against a mexican national, for example.
2) A republican, or someone of republican leanings.

Do note how the Republicans started to co-opt the tea-party movement, and immediately there were accusations of racism. This is, of course, by definition.

(end sarcasm)

Re:define:racist (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961735)

Maybe Republicans don't get called racists because they're Republicans, but because they tend to be fucking racist.

Wild idea, I know. Just saying.

Re:define:racist (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962005)

Well, maybe that would be true if you closed your eyes, ignored reality, and equated the actions of a couple individuals as representative of an entire group that have something different in common. But that would make you suffer the same logic failure that racists seem to suffer.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (1, Insightful)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961197)

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)...

The idea is that a poll watcher (a neighbor, for instance) could, at that time, say, "hey, that isn't John Smith who lives on Cherry Lane", triggering a provisional vote for that person. The provisional ballot has a signature on it and gets comared against the signature on file at the county.

Please stop drinking to cool aid. It's not healthy.

How many times is that going to happen? 0.01% of the time? Less? If it does happen, what's to keep the perp from signing a scribble, knowing that it may be thrown out, and move onto the next polling place to vote again? They're not going to be arrested on the spot, and there aren't cameras at polling places. Even if there were, there'd be no way to connect the ballot to the face on the camera. (There'd better not be!) There is simply no risk of getting caught.

What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat. (and probably rigging the odd close race, though they have much more efficient ways to do that.) (California will give you an ID if you claim to be poor. Well, they discount it to $7 and the welfare office will give you cash. Close enough.)

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961485)

Oh come on, you accuse him of drinking the "cool aid" (sic) and then start spouting off this conspiracy nonsense about non-citizen voters and rigging elections? Where is your evidence? Why would the Democrats even risk such scandal in a state that reliably votes for them to begin with?

Stop listening to right-wing radio. They are poisoning your brain.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (1)

jpapon (1877296) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961499)

What it's really about is permitting non-citizens to vote, and encouraging them to vote democrat.

Wait, what? How are non-citizens getting voter registration cards? If a non-citizen can register to vote, how would requiring a state ID change anything?

Re:This is basically how US elections work (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961217)

So....

How many people live in a country? How many poll watchers do you need to ensure that nobody gets in fraudulently?

Also, even if caught, the worst that the trickster gets is that his vote does not get counted.

Really, as a way of ensuring the legality of votes that method is just a joke. If you want to rig it with foreigners, just give as a direction an unpopulated, remote area and trust in probabilities.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961277)

What you wrote about poll watchers sounds good, but that's not how it works, at least, not in California. I know, because I helped run various polls in Los Angeles for over a decade. The only people who may challenge a person's right to vote are the people running the poll. A poll watcher (or somebody waiting their turn to vote) has the right to object to somebody who they don't think should be allowed to vote, but only a part of the precinct's staff can make a formal challenge.

Once, I remember allowing a man to use a provisional ballot to quiet him down, although I knew it wouldn't be accepted. He had told me already that he'd moved out of the precinct over six months ago, never bothered to re-register and was insisting that he be allowed to vote. Sorry, but he'd had ample time to re-register and the law says that he can only vote in his old precinct if he moved after registration closed. I let him vote, sealed the ballot in a provisional envelope and wrote the circumstances on the back. I'd bet money on long odds that the ballot ended up being shredded unopened.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961309)

>>>there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be)..

I agree 100%! I want to be able to vote for Mitt Romney at least 5 times, and these damn voter-ID laws are making that difficult. Curses. Foiled again.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961367)

Except that having a photo ID doesn't make it that any less likely. You already have to present some form of ID to register, just not necessarily photo ID. And to date nobody has been able to demonstrate that there's a statistically significant amount of voter fraud.

Now, if we can get the SCrOTUmS to keep their noses out of elections and for Diebold to stop installing questionable patches to certified machines then we can start worrying about individual voter fraud.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961391)

My state requires a photo ID. The poll watcher looks at me, then my photo, then at me before she allows me to proceed.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961999)

Which works when you make folks come down to the polling station. Which tends to make it harder for the poor folks working multiple jobs to vote. My state has had absentee voting for a while now and it's now the only way of voting. Haven't seen any sort of evidence of fraud cropping up. The GOP tried to sue and ultimately had votes taken from their candidate when only the Democrats could submit actual instances of fraudulent voting.

Photo ID isn't the sort of panacea that it's made out to be, when the GOP loses they'll just find something else to blame to cheat the system.

Re:This is basically how US elections work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961533)

Stop punishing everyone for the actions of a few.

Reasons? (1, Interesting)

zidium (2550286) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961355)

At least in California, there's no requirement for ID (nor should there be).

Would you mind naming one reason outside of the tired excuse that some mythical poor person with no ID will be so disenfranchised because s/he had no idea how to obtain a free state ID card?

Re:Reasons? (4, Insightful)

WarSpiteX (98591) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961403)

Unfortunately it's not so much a matter of the ID itself as the onerous conditions that the Republican party wants to put on getting voter ID. Poor people don't always have a residence they've been at for a year along with three bills and other forms of ID.

Re:Reasons? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961627)

My state has those same Voter ID conditions and it's legislature is 75% Democrat. So I can't really blame the repubs can I?

Re:Reasons? (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962139)

I'm not really sure what you are talking about. In my state, all you need to get an ID is a birth certificate and a social security card.

Perhaps the problem is more that your state is requiring too much crap to get an ID?

teenagers in their bedrooms (1)

mynamestolen (2566945) | about a year and a half ago | (#40960953)

yeah right. As if I'm ever gonna trust a computer network as a voting system. Better spending my time advocating for real democracy. ie proportional representation, not that FPP junk that UK and USA have.

Re:teenagers in their bedrooms (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961597)

i'm gunna vote for the first candidate to don a darth vader costume for the rest of his life, and to change the form of government to a galactic empire. of course i don't give a shit about the old guy with the self-inflicted wrinkly face

Inform/edit (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#40960973)

Inform on your neighbors and family! Er, I mean edit their wiki pages to provide evidence of their political affiliation - for the good of the voting process.

open source governance? validating neighbours? (2, Interesting)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40960977)

This is a joke, right?

Representative governments work because people has better things to do than ALL be involved with EVERYTHING.

That is a sure way destroy an economy and then destroy a social by being controlled by vocal minority wackos - in fact, I'd suggest that some people would view current governments as already being too driven by vocal minorities.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (3, Insightful)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961049)

Actually the biggest reason we don't all vote on every last issue is that we can't all live in one city and meet in one place. The Internet fixes that problem. Yes there are other problems, but don't discount the ability to have your say in things that matter! Look at the US presidency, it is a sham bought by corporate money, rarely is either candidate any good, but you have no choice in the matter. Wouldn't it be nicer to have your say in things that matter to you, issue by issue.

Just to open your mind a bit: If a citizen likes the idea of representative democracy in this system, they can merely shift their voting rights to someone they trust. In this way, people who are trusted become your elected official.

By no means do I think this would be a perfect government. But it would be a different government and if it played out for a few decades in just a simulated form, lots of the problems could be ironed out, or the idea could be scrapped altogether. One thing I theorize it is even nice for is piggybacking an existing government. The people say what they want, and you can check against what elected officials are doing. If elected officials are going against the direct democracy people and there are enough direct democracy people, the elected official can be voted out.

There is so much to this and it is so interesting of a topic that it shouldn't just be written off.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961209)

There is also the point that Metagovernment/open source governance principles are not entirely incompatible with existing structures. You could use them to run a political party designed to more directly represent the people.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961641)

How do you prevent people from selling their voting rights? I assume this information would have to be public, since it's required to validate electors; since it's public, it can be transacted. You can say that you'd make it "illegal," but enforcement of such things is extremely difficult, particularly when some people, like party bosses, ward heelers, employers, religious leaders, etc. are in a position to put considerable duress on voters. That's why voting is secret, simply making it illegal to discriminate against voice votes is impractical.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961789)

I'm embarrassed reading your posts. You're like an overly sincere college freshman who thinks his simple & obvious idea (hey, we should vote on the internet! Nobody's thought of that before!) is genius that's going to change the world. You talk about "opening" other people's minds, maybe you should listen to the very reasonable objections.

mister2au makes a good point about representational democracy. For certain issues (higher sales tax for a local school, gays being allowed into the military) your average person on the street will have a working knowledge and be able to give a proper vote. Whether this is ideal is questionable: California voter initiatives commonly allow state & local issues to be decided by direct votes, and I'd say that many of the decisions are bone-headed and overly influenced by lobbyists.

However, what about the proposition to alter the fire district along Wilson Street, so that zone 7 is given a 20% larger territory to cover, without any change in fire fighting budgeting? Your average citizen will have no idea, and would have to do a lot of work to come up with even a half-informed decision. There are millions of such issues on a local, state, and federal level. Putting these up for direct vote wouldn't be practical, inevitably these issues would be decided by cranks & special interests.

Before you talk about re-writing democracy, you should attend a city council meeting or two.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961935)

Just to open your mind a bit

Or just open your ass cheeks cuz the nigger cock is goin' in!

Time for direct democracy (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962071)

"Actually the biggest reason we don't all vote on every last issue is that we can't all live in one city and meet in one place. The Internet fixes that problem."

Yes, I think it's time we move on to direct democracy. We've had the technology to do so for at least a decade. The effect of any fraud or vote manipulation can fixed by making the voting on critical issues more frequent. It should be possible to generate a trend that would make a sudden spike in say pro/anti gun/copyright/etc votes suspicious, unless it's tied to a major event.

Decisions should be reversible with a reasonable grace period for older decisions to be implemented before they are revoked. Let's say a majority decide to ban the sale of all firearms except for low-caliber handguns. The decision takes effect for four months before another vote is taken, which might reverse it. Safeguards should be in place that woudl require multiple consecutive votes or a cooling off period before critical decisions like the declaration of war or the revocation of a consitutional provision.

In our direct voting scenario, the president will be effectively a bureaucrat that merely implement decisions, thereby preventing government paralysis via "micro" management. Naturally such a president can also be impeached and removed from office for failing to do his job.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961683)

What is it with this idea that everyone has an obligation to vote and that making voting as easy as possible is automatically a good thing? I think it is immoral to vote when you don't understand the first thing about the candidates or the issues involved, and if you don't have time to get educated about it, then you should sit it out. At least picking a representative has the advantage that any candidate who gets as far as a major election has by then been at least somewhat vetted by the party organization, media etc and should in theory have more of a clue than the 'average' voter. Having EVERYBODY vote on whether the "2011 US bilateral investment treaty with Uruguay" should be signed or not, what percentage of the mortgage insurance premiums should be deductible from the tax return, and every other one of the million issues that come up to the legislators every year, would make great comedy but horrible governance.

Re:open source governance? validating neighbours? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962019)

Representative governments work because people has better things to do than ALL be involved with EVERYTHING.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We could have a blend of direct and representitive democracy: you could vote directly on issues you care about, and leave other issues to your elected representitive. Your rep's vote would be diminished by the fraction of her constituents that voted directly.

The biggest problem? (4, Interesting)

WarSpiteX (98591) | about a year and a half ago | (#40960981)

Is the biggest problem truly voter identification, rather than voter education?

On another note, once people don't have leaders to blame, will we see increased societal polarization? Right now, hippie liberal wiener in Boston isn't blamed for abortion laws, just as frothing at the mouth nutjob conservative in New Mexico isn't blamed for gun laws. What sort of societal conflict would we see if neighbours, or at least neighbouring states, disagree on divisive issues?

Re:The biggest problem? (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961115)

It could definitely be a problem if everyone voting or discussing laws had their real name to them as opposed to an anonymous ID#. Even more so, the problem gets deeper than that though: What if a minority find itself in a position where it is oppressed by the majority? Would that minority get violent? The original idea behind US democracy was that the guy in charge changes every 4 years as to not need violent regime change.

The key is, that making a direct democracy has many problems. You don't just institute it without exploring all the problems. But first creating a simulation of a direct democracy would be a great way to see what are all the problems with it. I don't think exploring it as an experiment is that bad of an idea. Just don't let any country officially download the ap for their government until it has been given like a 20-30 year analysis.

Re:The biggest problem? (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961349)

I strongly agree with that view. There is a lot of emphasis on getting vote counts correct, when there is substantial evidence that various misunderstandings or divergence in information can have a much bigger effect on elections than the quite small amount of voter fraud. It's not at all unusual on a given issue for 20-40% of the population (sometimes more!) to have factually incorrect views of an issue: not just disagreeing on policy, or being wrong on a politically-charged or subjective question, but just having the wrong information to start with. With those kinds of error rates, hand-wringing over "hanging chads" and such is like trying to get your measurement error down to +/-0.001% in a scientific experiment where your methodology is suspect and you're not quite sure what the material involved actually is. Yeah, you'll get a precise measurement, but of what?

Re:The biggest problem? (1)

WarSpiteX (98591) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961361)

Great point.

I was thinking something along the lines of the disaster that is the California proposition system (yay, no more tax hikes! that worked out great...), but I think you hit the spot better.

Re:The biggest problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961967)

(yay, no more tax hikes! that worked out great...)

Spending more than was received in taxes, of course, had nothing whatsoever to do with that. And you'd be a fool to think otherwise!

I ran across this very problem too (4, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961009)

I eventually want to write a piece of software which allows for direct democracy. Everyone who has a computer or goes to the library can vote on bills, and tell their figure head officials how to act. You still need people as acting officials because sticking a robot in the UN is kinda silly for example. This isn't to change the US government, but if you have a piece of software that acts as direct democracy with customizable features for a constitution, any time some people overthrow their oppressive government, they could just go,"Hey, lets install direct democracy."

Anyway the problems I've run across is:
You need to authenticate users manually, so maybe the authenticator cards are good for people so stolen passwords can't stop you.

But the bigger problem will be people doing MTM attacks and changing votes, or maybe hacking the system from out of the country, or buying citizen's voting rights.

The main solution for some problems is:
You need your own closed Internet in your country, a secure web, where people from outside the Internet can't log in.

Sure sometimes someone will tap into the line on the telephone pole for MTM, but if you stop it, they get prison time.

You gotta limit what a standard citizen's client can get to also, or people could just route from the internet to client to into the system.

There are a WHOLE HOST of problems though... more than I can even imagine. There is just about no greater honeypot to a hacker than to become a leader of a country. The way I'm going to go about it involves not working on the security issues at first, but just working on the direct democracy system, so when the security issues can be addressed, the system could be altered or rewritten when it happens. Just having something as proof of concept is better than nothing at all.

The street based community wiki seems pretty smart. It was better than my plan to start locally and get people to sign up in person, and for us to hand them a password.

Probs is I have a few projects on my plate before I go back to this system again. If someone wants to start an open source form of government, I'm sure some country down the line will have a revolution and might be interested. So any work done here will be of benefit in the future.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (4, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961077)

The software problems aren't the problems. Direct democracies fail because they inevitably result in mob rule. That and attacking Syracuse.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961157)

Exactly like I said, there are many problems in it. My friend and I are going to be starting one in 2 years. We tried back in 2008, but I told him we should just give up because we'll never compete with Digg.com. ^^

There are many versions of direct democracy that don't all involve people voting directly on laws.

For instance there is a direct democracy that merely influences a representative democracy in place. This is where I'm going with my friend in the future. It will be a discussion group based on political ideas of what is important for the state. Then elected officials will be examined if they voted for similar ideas. The guys who go against what you want, you can vote out. In its purest form, it is just active education, which is desperately needed for voters. If every voter knew what they wanted and their elected official's track record, they could know if they want to reelect them.

Sadly today, most people get their education from TV campaign ads, which due to polling the local people, quite often tell them what they want to hear then the politician does what the campaign contributor who paid for the ads wants.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961929)

Digg had a big problem http://blogs.alternet.org/oleoleolson/2010/08/05/massive-censorship-of-digg-uncovered/ this was obvious enough if you weren't conservative an alternative would have been welcomed by many.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961125)

The problem may be 'pure' democracy. If like minded people gain the reins of power, our current US Constitution, and the tradition of Western Democracy, so far has put constraints and restraints on the winners such that they do not get to act in a 'winner takes all' fashion.

Between conservatives and liberals, I don't know what scares me most: the possibility of the side I identify with gaining total control of the 3 US Banches of government, or the side I don't identify with.

Which leads me to basis of my real fear: the masses. Masses often act like mobs, or the lowest common denominator. (Other than being low and common, I have no issue with the LCD).

A general rule of thumb, is that in order to appeal to large numbers of people, the idea or at least the image needs to be simple and lacking sophistication.

The proper response to my assertion would be for someone to whack me upside the head as they scoot buy on a skateboard, and one of their buds hollers "Awesome!"

Re:I ran across this very problem too (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961431)

Which leads me to basis of my real fear: the masses.

Then you're a democrat. That is the current irrational fear democrats are falling to.
Republicans are falling to a different fear, that Obama is the anti-christ and will lead America into servitude to the UN or something.

Why people insist on finding something irrational to fear, I have no idea.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961557)

Then you're a democrat. That is the current irrational fear democrats are falling to.

No, he's realistic. I don't see how anyone with a brain can have confidence in the masses.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961133)

If your solution depends on keeping a 200 million people LAN closed from the outside, I can tell you right now that it won't work.

But how is MITM a problem? Issue everyone a smartcard (many countries already did it) and a $20 card reader with PIN, then use the card to sign the vote, and encrypt it before sending it. There, MITM avoided.

Unfortunately, there are much bigger problems with online voting.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961283)

I am at a total loss as to what your threat model is. Essentially all of the security issues you discuss disappear if you use SSL. If you want to be really sure that people don't have their passwords stolen or guessed, then use two-factor auth (either rely on their cell phones for the cheap option or physical tokens if you can afford a few dollars for each user). As the siblings point out, security issues remain, but they don't seem to be what you think they are.

While online voting and direct democracy seem like questionable ideas at best, the United States at least is badly in need of a platform for meaningful political dialogue. No official decisions need to be made by the site; the citizens need to be more educated about the issues, and, importantly, understand why there's disagreement (i.e. that 50%+ of the country isn't just misled idiots).

Re:I ran across this very problem too (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961333)

>>>You still need people as acting officials because sticking a robot in the UN is kinda silly for example.

The Animatrix tells me this is a very, very bad idea.

And for more-direct democracy, I'd favor modifying the House of Representatives so that, rather than taking a count of the ayes & nays, the Speaker looks at the result of an internet weekly vote by the People. That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling). The Senate would continue to function as it does now, as a representative body for the States.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961701)

That way stupid shit like the TARP bill won't pass (80% of Americans were against it according to Gallup polling).

If we don't trust voters to pick the right people to rep them, why would we trust them to make the right decision on individual bills? It's the same system with the same problems, you're just changing the kind of questions you're posing to it. Why is polling on bills better than polling on representatives? Are people better at judging bills than judging people? That's pretty much a complete inversion of the founders' vision, not that that's a bad thing, it's just a very radical idea, with very little reason to it.

Voting is a small part of passing laws. The most important part of the process is the writing -- he who frames the question controls the process.

Re:I ran across this very problem too (1)

bigtreeman (565428) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961819)

The more points of contact the higher your level of trust and especially by having associations with many different but maybe also interconnected identifiers.

We are well located by our cable connection or ADSL connection which was tested to our house when we moved to this address. If I use a mobile dongle, it is associated with a mobile number which can be located by the provider. Even better if I have a GPS in my phone that I tether to my laptop, or if I was younger I could read my mobile phone.

It is interesting to cross reference your location with neighbours, my postman knows where I live, a few companies have delivered stuff to our home, by bank account statement and my work pay advice is posted to my home.

Using my laptop web cam I could compare my license photo with my face. Holding your palm in front of your web cam could provide another form of biometric identification, iris or finger print scanning.

Trust or mistrust propagation? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961021)

I haven't RTFA (yet), but one problem sprang into my mind: assume that a group of people make the false claim of them being neighbours. Assume someone will contest the fact...

The question is: without "real world checks" (e.g. one is too far away to actually do it), who are to be trusted: the contesters or the claimants?

There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (3, Insightful)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961029)

It is nothing more than a digital version of a Tammany Hall machine.

Jezum H. Crow, paper ballots work fine. You're a solution in search of a problem.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961207)

The problem is a significant portion of the population isn't voting. Paper ballots are inconvenient and no one wants to wait in line for half an hour to place a vote. It should be just as easy to vote for the politician you support as to vote for the contestants on talent shows.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961321)

I've helped run polls many times, and I've never seen waiting lines that long. Once, there was a line of last-minute voters as we came up to closing time. As head of the precinct, I assured the voters that the polls would not close until everybody who got in line before closing time had voted, because that's the law. I don't think that we closed more than five minutes late, and that was probably the longest line I've ever seen at a poll.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962225)

I've only had a long wait once voting. They precincts changed and a lot of people showed to the wrong place. Strange thing is, the change was to divide two precincts into a third in order to speed the process of voting up.

It was about a 20-25 minute wait for 3 or 4 people in front of me to find that they were at the wrong place and could either use a provisional ballot, go to the right place, or go directly to the county elections commission and vote. Of course each one of them had to ask for directions to one of the alternative places.

Other then that, since 1989, I have not waited more then 5 minutes in line before signing in and voting.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961365)

My state uses scantrons. It has the advantages of both electronic voting (a quick tally by computer) and paper (hard to rig the election & provides an official tally in the event of a recount).

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (1)

deesine (722173) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961377)

People not voting is the symptom, not the problem.

To want voting be more like American Idol than Local DMV is closer to the problem, but still only a symptom.

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961591)

I stopped voting in the previous presidential election and do not intend to start again. Many of us are disenfranchised by the current duopoly system. We cannot in any good conscience vote for Romney or Obama, and Americans are collectively not smart enough to vote for any other parties to any significant degree. I've been voting for 3rd parties since the 1980's, but let's face it: in my life time there will never be a third party candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell. Voting for a R or a D just means more of the same loss of civil rights, corruption, and fiscal incompetence that we've seen so far. The third party candidates are often wacky single-issue candidates that probably shouldn't be in power. That leaves... nobody.

Until we change our voting system to stop favoring a duopoly, or something changes about the national psyche so that people think past the two candidates they see on duh tee vee, it's simply not worth my time to vote in presidential or midterm elections, as I am utterly and completely politically disenfranchised.

By the way, where's the candidate who has a PhD in a STEM field? There isn't one. They are all lawyers or once in a while "businessmen".

Re:There's nothing "ingenious" about this... (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962255)

What exactly do you expect a third party president to do when there is not major players in the house or senate?

You have been voting since the 80's, maybe you should check out President Carter's miserable failure of a presidency just before then and see what happens when you do not have the support of a significant portion of congress- (and yes, Carter had a democrat congress).

not sure (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961031)

The way this works (as I understand it, simplified), is people eventually notice sock-puppets, un-trust them, and then the sock-puppets live off in their own un-trusted world that no one trusts.

That might work on a fairly neutral topic, but imagine you notice there are sock-puppets who agree with your opinion on abortion, are you going to un-trust them, or are you going to create more yourself? After all, it's a matter of life-or-death, what are a few bogus accounts when such an important principle (insert any principle you believe strongly) is on the line??

This plan doesn't seem to account that people would be willing to accept sock-puppets that agree with them. Also doesn't seem to realize that I have better things to do with my time than constantly update my 'trusted' list.

Re:not sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961307)

The way this works (as I understand it, simplified), is people eventually notice sock-puppets, un-trust them, and then the sock-puppets live off in their own un-trusted world that no one trusts.

Isn't this what one of the major MMOs does to thwart bot runners? Warden bot-checks suspect, suspect fails check (ie, is charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced), then is removed to "prison-land" aka untrusted world. Free to roam with fellow cheaters/hackers. Where they are guilty until proven innocent.

I can't remember the specific game, but it parallels current events IRL here in the USA. Corporation buys Lobbyist/Senator/Congressman. Lobbyist/Senator/Congressman codifies corporate non-compliance into law. Bill gets passed. Newly defined suspects of non-compliance are apprehended, tried, convicted, and sentenced to untrusted-land (aka prison).

I want to cry, but I'm out of tears. Sadly things like this require the usage of the Box of Last Resorts. Sadder yet is that most in the USA are so pussified and indoctrinated they can't even imagine how that last box is supposed to be used.

Off the hook (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961065)

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

Re:Off the hook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961409)

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

'es been livin' down in th' muck in th' dungeon 'neath 'is master's castle.

Re:Off the hook (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961821)

"As we (very gradually) move away from feudal, leader-based forms of governance..." - You're kidding, right? What rock have you been living under?

'es been livin' down in th' muck in th' dungeon 'neath 'is master's castle.

Are you nearly finished cleaning my moat. It stinks down there.

Moving away from leaders? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961089)

Please. If something like this were to catch on (it won't), we'd still have leaders. Only instead of politicians with known checks on their powers, they'd be the Rush Limbaughs and Glen Becks of the world, convincing hordes of useful idiots to do as they say. At least with a Republic, we have a few layers of insulation between the "ditto-heads" and the government.

The dream lives on! (2)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961121)

Leaderless government! Yeah right.

Not a new idea. That's precisely how the U.S. Presidency was supposed to work: Congress would define policies (by consensus, political parties were considered uncool) and implemented by a chief executive (also chosen by consensus, hence our weird, unwieldy electoral college) who was not seen as a leader. That's why he's called a "president", because in 1789 the word didn't have connotations of leadership — it just meant "presiding officer". No longer true, of course.

Government by consensus isn't going to happen as long as people are contentious and combative in defending their own views and attacking those they disagree with. A good government takes the ongoing nonviolent civil war that is social discourse in a free society (particularly on Slashdot) and uses it to synthesize a laws and policies the governed can mostly live with.

Re:The dream lives on! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961435)

The Constitution wasn't written to fix problems with the British government. It was written to fix the Articles of Confederation. One of the largest of these problems was that the executive branch wasn't strong enough.

Re:The dream lives on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961891)

Actually this is not at all true.

George Washington was widely perceived as being elected the leader of the US.
Electoral college does not derive from old ideas of consensus.
If you're completely ignorant on a subject, please don't post about it unless it's to ask questions.

Video Records (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961161)

What if we take a video records in addition to quantified data. A person makes a short clip in the voting booth saying, "My name is Joe Schmo and I vote for So-and-So". It would be an extra layer of protection from the votes getting cooked.

Wouldn't work in my neighborhood (1)

drdrgivemethenews (1525877) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961231)

I've only seen three of my neighbors often enough to identify them in a lineup, and they all live in the same house.

My hipster meter overflowed (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961263)

God, so much douchebaggery in that summary. And nobody is moving towards any of that hipster bullshit, that's the kind of crap the potheads and criminal-embracers believe in.

I need to go ride my fixed gear bike while smoking a joint and hanging out with some crusty hikers to get a handle on this.

Media manipulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961517)

What about the fact that most people are ignorant and easily manipulated by the mainstream media? I think this might shift the power from people who (at least) know the issues and do this for a living, to medias that just want to further their agenda. Of course there will be some independent people who will think things through, but they are a minority in my opinion. This might be a reason why representative democracy is better, as long as the representatives are not completely corrupt. Any thoughts?

Fuck , fuck, fuck, fuck censorship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961619)

Is it about avoiding spammers, or is about avoiding those controlling the communications & voting mechanisms manipulating the system in order to discredit & censor? E.g. this particular "spammer" was gagged & snuffed this afternoon simply for offending the editorial staff with a fuck joke. See Ask Slashdot: What Is the Best Position To Work For Long Hours?

Makes me wonder if said self righteous arrogant & ignorant church lady at the helm wiping thee ass with hundreds of years of violent opposition to said practices isn't the originator of this post. Part of the reason for me posting here, is to be heard by a larger audience, as I was sent to the wee hours of the bottom of the above thread amongst several other coincidental actions which made it extremely difficult to get the message through. At one point the post was even deleted. When called on this bullshit it showed up again with a -1.

As always kids, bullshit & ignorance is the problem & there's no amount of rational civil discourse which will cut through that. Rather the bullshit must be identified until the perpetrators are hung by their little shriveled nugs on the town square.

To be clear: what the fuck, and fuck man are kosher on slashdot, fuck up (as in a working position) is spam & subject to manipulation & deletion by "management" with objections squished as much as can be gotten away with. Far from spam, this is one of the most important things that we can talk about in a time of mass surveillance & automated control of discourse.

In fact this is the definition of "fucked", which is what this once intelligent forum will become if this is not addressed.

Re:Fuck , fuck, fuck, fuck censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961667)

And perhaps this isn't so fucked to most people who would rather not deal with such uncleanliness. Would be sad, but I'm ok with that. If not, I vote to mv to unfilter -1 posts by default. Assuming such a notion as vote carries any weight around here. The reason for this is there are very few -1's & I'd much rather not be "protected" by default from a non-existent nuisance from those who know better than I.

Why so complicated??? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year and a half ago | (#40961663)

When the obvious answer in the era of NO PRIVACY AT ALL is actually, to use it in our benefits, and just avoid any privacy when we are voting!!! Then, ah then, there will be no false vote, and no need of complicated authentication system, and encryption, and race with the bad guys.....
So i wonder, why no one wants this pretty simple and easy to implement system?

No Avoidance No Principal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961719)

At a new USA Voter Authentication Station (VAS) the following exchange occurred:

[Obama Supporter in Charge] Hay white chit ... hu da ha r u ... u nobiddy ... u gt ot hr or weze killz u nobiddy white chit.

[Voter] I am sorry sir but I can not understand what you are saying.

[Obama Supporter in Charge] Dout gv me dat white chit. Weze nkw u white chit. Gt ot he white chit ... uz no votes today.

LOL

Re:No Avoidance No Principal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40961761)

Ingenious!! +5

legislating is boring (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962075)

you can barely keep actual legislators focused on the task

and there is something like only 2-3% of the population who is interested in the issues and voting on them. 10% of that 2-3% is actually educated on the issues too. think about it

there are a lot of problem with representative democracy. but when compared to direct democracy, it's actually better. the people are fine with the idea of picking someone to represent their interests. of course, those representatives can be corrupted and frequently are. so work on that problem, rather than introduce a whole new set of worse problems with direct democracy

the vast majority don't have the time, interest, inclination, or education to vote constructively. if you made voting compulsory, you would have joke votes

the best virtual democracy can do is make representative democracy more fluid and transparent. work on that

PGP of course! (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | about a year and a half ago | (#40962173)

It's been years that inside Debian, we vote using our PGP keys, which are in the "web of trust" (eg: signed by our peers). People got to learn about signing each other keys, then voting isn't a problem at all.

By the way, I just realize that the login form in Slashdot tells me that my password should be from 6 to 20 chars long. 6 chars at least, ok, but why is there a limit on the length? Shouldn't Slashdot use password hashing, and then don't care about the length of my password?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...