×

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!

Is New York City Ready For Digital Voting?

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the only-if-they-can-do-it-from-a-cab dept.

Politics 93

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Turnout for local elections in New York City was 33.7 percent in 2010, according to Fair Vote. And while some apps and startups are looking to resurrect turnouts in future elections, most candidates still couldn't tell you how they work or why they might be necessary. Benjamin Kallos is a candidate for New York City Council's fifth district, which includes the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island, and has his sights on modernizing the electoral process. He's campaigning on a high-tech platform that he says aims to deepen technology's role in promoting transparency, inclusion, and accountability within pockets of New York City's voting pool that remain largely disengaged."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

93 comments

No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524013)

Electronic voting just makes it easier to rig elections.

Re:No No No (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#44524037)

Electronic voting just makes it easier to rig elections.

I presumed that's what they meant by "modernize the electoral process"

Re:No No No (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 8 months ago | (#44524157)

"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

Re:No No No (2, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#44524241)

"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

I always suspected Cheney was a Sith Lord...

Re:No No No (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524329)

I always suspected Cheney was a Sith Lord...

Wrong group membership, chucklehead; Cheney isn't running NYC. The same machine that has largely controlled it for decades is far more enamored of the potential control (and monitoring) that e-voting would provide. Make sure the cit'zens vote the _right_ way, or else.

Re:No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524229)

It's all about going green - no ballots to toss in the dumpster.

Re:No No No (1)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#44528175)

Electronic voting just makes it easier to rig elections.

I presumed that's what they meant by "modernize the electoral process"

I think you might have presumed wrong.
Going through TFA it seems they are concerned witb voter registration and information rather than actual voting on line.

That's article was so full of uninspired prose that I may have fallen asleep mid sentence and missed it but I recall no reference to proposals for electronic voting.

Re:No No No (1, Interesting)

Xicor (2738029) | about 8 months ago | (#44524903)

it is already being rigged... theres no difference between now and a digital version, except that if we can all vote from our houses, the voter turnout would be much much higher.

Re:No No No (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#44526791)

it is already being rigged... theres no difference between now and a digital version, except that if we can all vote from our houses, the voter turnout would be much much higher.

I live in Texas and I'm planning to vote in NYC... 500 times.

Re:No No No (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 8 months ago | (#44528575)

there are ways to keep you from voting in states other than your own... and ways to keep you from voting more than once. say for instance that you are registered to vote. they send out some vote id and password to a secure email that you are required to provide when signing up. you then use that one time use login and password to make your votes.

Re: No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44529197)

Unfortunately, that is not a good solution... With online voting, there must be a way for a user to cast his vote and then change it. Otherwise, someone could force you to vote in a certain way.

Re:No No No (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 8 months ago | (#44533367)

Email is not secure. Sorry. And even if it were secure, we change email addresses like we change panties around here.

Re:No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524965)

Then I'm surprised Chicago didn't do it first. The Daleys would have loved this.

Re:No No No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44528107)

Paper ballots are the way to go. There is no way they can be rigged.

I'm "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson, and I approve this message.

If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (4, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 8 months ago | (#44524021)

If you're too lazy to vote - no, I don't care about your opinion.

(Can't make it to your polling place? I'll bet you can find some time in the months leading up to the election to vote absentee. Don't have transportation to go vote? There are a dozen different programs and thousands of volunteers who will help. GOML!)

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 8 months ago | (#44524069)

..just move the voting to sundays, like every other sensible western nation does it.

digital remote voting, which enables vote selling and coercion? fuck that. it goes against every basic principle of being able to vote what you want no matter what your employer or even spouse tells you.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 8 months ago | (#44524369)

..just move the voting to sundays, like every other sensible western nation does it.

Some sensible nations do it on Saturdays!

Anyway there is a movement to try and change this in the US: Why Tuesday? [whytuesday.org]

Also there are things like this: Bill would let Californians vote on Saturday [sacbee.com]

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about 8 months ago | (#44530071)

..just move the voting to sundays, like every other sensible western nation does it.

Some sensible nations do it on Saturdays!

That would lower turnout not increase it. People can be convinced to leave their jobs to go stand in line for a few hours, but giving up their weekend time? Fuck that.

Re: If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care.. (1, Informative)

IrquiM (471313) | about 8 months ago | (#44525081)

I am voting electronically this year in the Norwegian election. If somebody is stupid enough to give me money for voting for a certain party, then let them. I can vote as many times as I want, and it is only the last vote that counts. If I want to be even more evil, I can vote by paper as well, and let the guy paying money to see me vote on the net be there until the end. The paper vote superseded the electronic one.

Re: If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care.. (2)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about 8 months ago | (#44530129)

I am voting electronically this year in the Norwegian election. If somebody is stupid enough to give me money for voting for a certain party, then let them. I can vote as many times as I want, and it is only the last vote that counts. If I want to be even more evil, I can vote by paper as well, and let the guy paying money to see me vote on the net be there until the end. The paper vote superseded the electronic one.

That implies you guys don't have a secret ballot. After all, how would they know which vote to cancel on the subsequent electronic votes? Or worse, they're even able to match up your paper ballot to your electronic vote to know to cancel your electronic vote. Which necessarily implies that if somebody is coercing you to vote a certain way, all they need to do is bribe someone in government that has access to that information, to verify that you actually voted the way you were supposed to.

Of course, that's not even the worst problem with electronic voting. How do you know your vote was actually counted if there's no physical record of it that can be verified? I think electronic voting can work, but you can't do it from home, and it must have a paper trail. You go to a voting booth, electronic select your choices, submit your votes, get a human-readable printout with which you may confirm your vote, deposit human-readable printout in ballot box. Votes get counted based on electronic submission, but if anyone requests a recount, or if a recount is automatically triggered because the election is close, we count the paper.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44526085)

..just move the voting to sundays, like every other sensible western nation does it.

digital remote voting, which enables vote selling and coercion? fuck that. it goes against every basic principle of being able to vote what you want no matter what your employer or even spouse tells you.

I support (and am working on) digital remote voting software (Just as a hobby, you can see it here [github.com]). That said, its really nice to see someone oppose it on the correct grounds. "vote selling and coercion" are the correct objections to remote voting, mail in or digital. Unfortunately, it looks like digital remote voting might suffer worse from this issue, which is arguable more important that the issues it does solve (like venerability / needing to trust the people running the election)

I can't figure out an algorithm that resists vote selling that is also secret ballot, verifiable and works without trusting the authority running the election. I've been looking into deniable encryption though; there might be a way, and I'm thinking about it. I can get resistance to vote selling working, but I'd have to give up some of the other stuff (like real-time third party auditing that can prove election fraud if votes are rejected, or secret ballot with respect to those running the election servers). You either need to trust that your vote is counted, or its impossible to sell fake voting credentials that can not be checked for validity by the buyer. (The only way to resist vote selling for remote voting is if you can sell apparently valid credentials someone can cast a vote with, but it won't count, and they can't ever tell)

Regardless, this trad-off can be taken either way (verifiable, or coercion resistance) while still doing a remote digital system, so I don't think it being digital is inherently the problem here (I haven't see a paper system that offered both either).

Given that in my state (Washington) we do pure mail in now, I've been looking for a verifiable replacement for that. Personally though, given that I haven't worked out a good solution for vote selling+verifiable, maybe we go back to the in person voting booths being the only option, and legally require voting (you can go in and just cast an empty ballot if you want). That really seems like the only way, but that still could be done digitally (but not remotely), and perhaps with better verifiability.

Anyway, thanks for being thoughtful and actually knowing what the fundamental issues facing democracy are. I wish everyone was like that.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (1)

icebike (68054) | about 8 months ago | (#44528295)

The Norwegian you responded to makes a fair point regarding vote selling.

If you can lock in your vote, then change your mind right up to the time polls close, buying votes would be a fools errand, and would simply disappear.

The Washington way is more prone to vote buying, (bring in your ballet down at the union hall, vote the union ticket, sign, seal and drop in the union mailbox and collect 50 bucks). Although I'm not aware of this being done anywhere, Cy Sun managed to get elected somehow.

Vote by mail is largely successful in Washington, with some of the highest turnout rates in the nation, triple the 21 percent quoted in TFA.
http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voter_participation.aspx [wa.gov]
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html [gmu.edu]

It might not be broken and may not need fixing.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44528419)

It might not be broken and may not need fixing.

Yes, its not particularly bad, but I have no way to know for sure if my vote is counted (though there is no reason to think its not, and I could go observe the counting I think). Fixing that, and making the process cheaper to run is what would be gained with a digital option.

Having the setup in-place to do elections digitally also opens up some interesting potential options: it can be used for initiatives: let people create their own elections for the electorate to vote on, and if they get enough votes/signatures, it could be promoted to an official one. It might also become easier to get things like instant runoff (and better) systems in place.

I also have ideas for other crazy uses of such a system, like a replacement for the house where you can override your reps use of your vote if desired to achieve direct democracy. There are lots of neat things you can do with a system that can cheaply run large elections with no counting delays.

Its these potential advances in democratic practice that make modern voting systems interesting. Also, if there is an internationally accepted verifiable election system, it would be hard for countries like Russia to justify using one they can rig.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44528471)

Regarding changing your vote to defeat vote selling, that does not work unless the election operators can tell 2 attempts to vote are from the same person, and there is nothing to prevent whoever you sold your credentials to from changing it back (you get in a vote update race). Also, it prevents verifying your vote is included until the election ends, and leaves you with little recourse if its not updated. My system will let you (during the election) generate sufficient evidence to prove to third parties (media, auditors etc) that your vote was fraudulently not included, without disclosing both your identity and attempted vote (one or the other must be released depending on the stage you are denied at).

My system protects the voter's identity by using blind signatures: the operators sign at most one ballot per person, but they can't see the content of the ballot, so they don't know who voted how. Thus, if it let you vote again, they would have no idea which vote to remove, and you would still hold the proof (signed ballot) that your old vote must be considered valid. This is a similar trade-off to the one I mentioned previously: you can better resist vote selling if you are willing to lose secret ballot with respect to the operators of the election.

In some nations, thats a good trade (I might take that option here), but in general it is not. Personally I'm mostly interested in the crypto and security, so I'm not going to assume its safe to trust the people running it for my system.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524615)

What about people who are logical enough to see that their individual vote has no statistical significance and thus is a waste of their time?

"But it should be a privilege to vote! You're throwing away the rights given to you by democracy!"

I'm well aware of that, but I'm a realist, and am not going to do something that has no tangible personal benefit.

Re:If you're too lazy to vote - no I don't care... (0)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 8 months ago | (#44525813)

I am not to lazy to vote. I am just not a big enough hypocrite to vote for any of the options available. Wasting my time and gas to drive down the the polling place, and write in Peewee Herman just doesn't seem worth it.
Take for example the election (Non electronic) that be had her not long ago. Here are the options:
Corrupt bastards who will do roughly what they were already doing. lots of scandals. Economy here isn't terrible.
Incompetents who will form the opposition, and would be an unmitigated disaster if elected.
Small party no one cares about
Greens (I think they actually got one elected)
Small selection of single issue parties and independents.

I already knew who was going to win. So what is the point?

Betteridge's law of headlines (2, Informative)

ardmhacha (192482) | about 8 months ago | (#44524029)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines [wikipedia.org]

"Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Fuck NYC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524031)

Those fucking savages are lucky they have indoor plumbing. New York can seriously fuck the fuck off. A bunch of neanderthal bitches.

No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524033)

For digital "voting" to even be considered, the city needs to provide every person over 18 with a functional computer and dependable connection.

Re:No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524285)

That's only true if digital voting is the only method available. There's no reason you can't make good old paper ballots available as well.

I just got a text from a mayoral canidate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524043)

Oh god! The humanity..... put that thing away Anthony.

This question is just silly (3, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about 8 months ago | (#44524045)

Most Americans are barely capable of making an informed vote, much less being "ready for digital voting".

That's why we're $17 trillion in debt and running a massive defecit.

Re:This question is just silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44529935)

This was insightful, not funny.

Re:This question is just silly (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 8 months ago | (#44540841)

It was intended insightfully, but the fact that people think it's funny actually kind of helps make my point.

No (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 8 months ago | (#44524077)

But since digital voting is all about easy, traceless election-fraud, it will be used nonetheless.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524319)

Right on, some people say it might have happened in Mitt Romney's primary when an old lady said the voting machine was innocently lost in her house for hours, then it turns out Mitt won by 51%.

No, but Chicago is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524081)

'nuff said.

Do not want (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524083)

Potential voters who can't be bothered to show up at the polling station on the correct day, and maybe stand in line for an unknown amount of time don't deserve to have a vote. It's just a commodity that is ripe for manipulation anyway ("we have a deal just for you").

And that's not even going into the well-known security problems of e-voting.

Here's my postive comment. Yes to digital voting! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524087)

Yes, this is exactly the right direction. Let people who know something about what's going on, and actually care, vote more often. But raising the turn out percentage will probably just mean more people voting the party line all the way down.

Re:Here's my postive comment. Yes to digital votin (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#44524221)

Yes, this is exactly the right direction. Let people who know something about what's going on, and actually care, vote more often.

You don't need black box voting for that; it's not like election days and polling places are clandestine secrets, you know.

Re:Here's my postive comment. Yes to digital votin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524387)

I like it. I vote in every election that I can now. But with digital, I probably WILL vote more often as you suggest. I'll most likely vote 5 to 6 times per election. It can't be too hard to do. Even without "hacking" anything it should be eminently possible to use a couple of older folks voting credentials...

Spoken like a non-techie (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 8 months ago | (#44524117)

Anyone who thinks that new technology for voting will improve transparency, inclusion, and accountability has not been keeping up with the news. Or bothered to search the EFF web site.

Or is his platform, "Oh, never mind the past! We'll get it right *this* time!"

People are not ready for e-voting. (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#44524133)

The electoral process must not only be fair, but also it should be very visibly fair. Otherwise the losing side will always accuse the other side of "fixing" elections. So the switch to e-voting requires the much harder work of persuading people that it is trustworthy. Other technical challenges are also very difficult. The voter should be able to verify that his/her vote is cast correctly and counted correctly. At the same time no one else, even with the cooperation of the voter, should be able to connect the vote cast to the voter. Voter not being able to prove how he/she voted is a fundamental requirement, without it people would buy/sell votes with confidence.

Computers are not ready for e-voting. (2)

Burz (138833) | about 8 months ago | (#44532365)

And may never be. 'BBV' was a common tag on Slashdot for years, and with good reason: There will always be major obstacles to auditing the machines even after you open source the software. Mountains worth of logic still reside within the ICs and there is no way to just pop the hood and see what logic gates affect which bits of output.

IMO, the closest thing anyone has gotten to a properly verifiable computerized voting system is one where the ballots are printed out with the voters' choices in easily readable form and then must be submitted by hand. OTOH, I think this method wastes time and it is better to use pre-printed forms that can be scanned; the voters do not have to wait for delays in printing or the voters checking the printed selections before the submit.

'Computerized voting' is acutally backwards voting with the list of priorities turned upside-down. Let the computers help with scanning the votes after they are made in a sensible way... not have it "help" create the votes themselves and then cough out facsimilies.

American voters sure are funny (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524139)

I keep seeing many Americans complaining online how their government keeps ruining their country. I wonder if many of those complainers actually voted seeing that turnout percentage. Are the complainers just silent minority? Do majority of Americans actually love how things are or why don't they go to vote? And those who vote, why they always vote the same shit with a different arsehole?

forced voting (1)

Danathar (267989) | about 8 months ago | (#44524149)

Although personally against the idea, I've often wondered how our elections would turn out if everybody was required by law to vote. Would the current patterns be re-enforced? Or would a radically different political landscape come about?

With NS of A around... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524187)

who will win the election?

Want a higher turnout? (0, Troll)

loony (37622) | about 8 months ago | (#44524199)

How about you then give us some real choices? I don't like in NYC so I really don't care about who was there then - but the issue is the same across the country. Here, we had a choice between a D who cheated on his taxes and an R who cheated on his wife. Neither had any qualifications that made me feel he had any chance of doing a good job... On state level it wasn't any better and don't get me started on presidential nonsense. One promises to waste money we don't have on war, the other sugarcoats it a little better and says we just have to find a way to pay with money we don't have social programs. In the end, it didn't matter - or do you really think Mittens would act any different to the NSA revelations? We need a choice between black and white (or call it green and red if you're too afraid of being called a racist) - not between ivory and snow! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_white)

Peter.

Re:Want a higher turnout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524489)

I agree with the notion that lack of adequate choice is the fundamental problem. Perhaps one meaningful electoral reform might be the mandatory inclusion of a "None of the Above" option for every position under contention, and wherever "None of the Above" wins, each party has to submit a new candidate.

Re:Want a higher turnout? (1)

Baron von Daren (1253850) | about 8 months ago | (#44524495)

Though I also want better choices, anyone who thinks the choices we have are equivalent isn’t paying attention at all.

The current administration takes no prizes if compared to ‘idealistic, dream’ administrations, but if compared to the last actual administration there is a huge qualitative difference. Enumerating the difference is off topic, but it certainly does matter whom you vote for. Put differently, even if both options suck, one most likely sucks a lot worse.

Re:Want a higher turnout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44529315)

think about sucking - the best sucker was my first gf. Each of the followers (not that many found the way to my cellar) were worse then the previous one. Now I live alone in fear of my private part (if there are such thing in times of NSA and other bastards) being bitten off by the next one.

Re:Want a higher turnout? (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | about 8 months ago | (#44525963)

The problem isn't necessarily lack of meaningful choice (although that is tragic in and of itself), the problem is that of apathy. Diddy's entreaties notwithstanding, a lot of people don't believe that every vote counts, and that may be a good reason why people don't show up to the polls on election day. Or they just don't care. Or they are deliberately not voting as a matter of protest (whatever that may be).

We're ready for real election progress (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524261)

Instead of high-tech and failure-prone ways to count plurality votes, why not some actual progress in the form of a better voting system? Instant Runoff voting, approval voting, and Condorcet methods would all produce a much better government and reduce voter apathy. Of course only the third parties support such changes, since existing representatives know they can be re-elected under the status quo. So they'd rather we focus on high-tech ways to count obsolete votes.

The only way out of this mess is to suck it up and vote exclusively for candidates who support voting system reform. Personally I'm a libertarian, but I voted for Jill Stein instead of Gary Johnson because her platform included voting system reform. We should only have to fight for one more 3rd party victory, not repeat the process once the Libertarians become the new Republicans. Our problem isn't inherently evil people, it's a broken process which corrupts good people.

Undo Gerrymandering? (4, Interesting)

NReitzel (77941) | about 8 months ago | (#44524307)

If some very bright person could figure out how to under gerrymandering of precincts, I'd vote for them on that principle alone.

Nobody likes that idea, though, because it threatens all the little fiefdoms established in congress and state legislatures, and might result in the end of millions of dollars of corporate bribes, er, contributions.

To Congressdorks: Remember Arab Spring. It can happen here.

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 8 months ago | (#44525627)

To Congressdorks: Remember Arab Spring. It can happen here.

Really? The way Occupy Wall Street succeeded? One important characteristic of Arab spring is having a few leaders, self-appointed mostly, who are recognized by many followers. These leaders represent their followers by proxy and leaders accumulate followers. In OWS you had All-Chiefs-and-no-Indians problem. The congress critters know it. They are not scared. The NRA has stood by them election after election, turning out votes repeatedly. That is the kind of track record you have to rake up if you want to be taken seriously.

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44528133)

To Congressdorks: Remember Arab Spring. It can happen here.

Really? The way Occupy Wall Street succeeded?

It succeeded, in that it made Obama look like a moderate. Enough people were fooled into reelecting him.

That was Obama's Winning Strategy.

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 8 months ago | (#44525633)

If some very bright person could figure out how to under gerrymandering of precincts, I'd vote for them on that principle alone.

Gerrymandering is only a tool, not good or bad. It can be used to make sure that minorities are given a voice in proportion to their numbers, and it can be used to make sure that minorities are completely silenced. Let me guess. White middle class male. Am I right?

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44526243)

Really? You think having the ability to arbitrarily choose who gets to vote for you is a tool for good? You can't think of any other way we could draw precincts that wouldn't be biased, so let's just stick with the method these jerks are using to maintain a 90% re-election dynasty, despite having 10% approval ratings?

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44527063)

Limit the perimeter to area ratio of districts. Precise restriction, but minimally proscriptive. Still something to argue about, and boundaries that can evolve, but it keeps things from getting too crazy.

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44542645)

Here's a very bright person who has figured out how to undo gerrymandering:
http://bdistricting.com/about.html

Re:Undo Gerrymandering? (1)

Rolgar (556636) | about 8 months ago | (#44543177)

My preferred method: Get rid of districts, and give the power to the voters. Set a window for 6-3 months before the election, and everybody registers their party preference. So, for a Federal election May to July, voters select the party they want to represent them. Maybe you end up with half Republicans and Democrats, and other parties finally get some real representation, collecting the other half. You use the registrations to determine which parties will get how many candidates. (Say 120 for Republicans & 120 for Democrats, 50 Libertarians, 45 Greens, 5 Communists, 3 Anarchists, 25 NAACP, 25 Latino Party, 1 KKK, 25 Christian Conservatives, 10 AARP, 15 Peace Party, etc.) Then once each party knows how many spots, they have their own party elections to determine which candidates they want to represent their constituents.

You have added benefits where everybody has a better selection than current. If you decide you don't like your current party (corruption, anti-science or education or other divergences) try to build a following to pull the party in a new direction, start a new party, select from dozens of other options.

You get rid of having half of a district feeling like their representative works for somebody else.

You get rid of the alignment between the Senate and the House, where they are chosen by the same electorate, just with fewer seats. Actually, we should throw out the Senate and have the State Houses approve the bills passed by the Federal House, before sending it to the President. Given today's technology level at the time of the negotiation of the House of Representatives, we probably would have had this instead of Senators, who were supposed to represent a break on the Federal government over running the powers of the states. All responsibilities of the Senate to approve Treaties, Presidential appointments, and impeachment duties are turned over to the House.

Then, since the electoral college is supposed to be somewhat representative of the House and Senate, replace it with the newly elected House plus the governor and his lieutenant governor, and throw out the presidential election altogether. This will reduce the cult of personality that gave us both Bush and Obama. Since the parties will be more fractured, the elected representatives will hopefully compromise on a competent candidate that doesn't upset anybody too much.

Yes this is what we need... (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 8 months ago | (#44524349)

A union thug or employer looking over your shoulder to make sure you vote the right guys in. Or a husband that will force his wife to vote for his candidate under threat of violence.

Digital only? I don't think so (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 8 months ago | (#44524391)

The only way to be as sure as possible that every cast was both cast and recorded correctly will be to have a verifiable paper trail.

Whether a piece of paper is spit out to the voter after voting and stored in a secured box or is actually used to cast the vote, without a verifiable paper trail the means to rig elections go up exponentially.

Human readable paper trail (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 8 months ago | (#44524733)

You don't want "a barcode" or something on the paper to represent your vote, since that can't be read (easily) by humans. We only get to vote every few years. If it's too much trouble to count those votes or if it's absolutely vital "for democracy" that we know the result of the elections the second the election closes, we have something wrong in our democracy. Cast votes in a non-tech way that each civilian can verify if he or she can read. Count the votes afterwards, have them recount by someone else. Keep a group of people from all camps in the voting office and during the counting present. That way, it will be almost impossible to rig the votes, it will be just as expensive or even cheaper then electronic voting, because expensive machines that require programming for every use and then get put away for a long period are extremely expensive per election and people are cheap and/or volunteer. There is nothing that needs improving on the technology of voting. If people don't come to vote, it means that politics aren't interesting enough for them. If candidates would have a program that would actually mean something to the people eligible to vote, they will show up, even if they have to take time off work for it. Maybe that's what needs improvement?

Re:Human readable paper trail (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 8 months ago | (#44524867)

There's nothing wrong with having a barcode, reading the votes electronically, then having hand counts to verify.

Re:Human readable paper trail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44526829)

Problem with that is how does one know the barcode actually says what the text says?

mod d03n (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524601)

perspective, the I'm sick of it. is EFNet, and you Prospects are very Raise or lower the irc netwHork. The website. Mr. de learn what mistakes

Is the East Coast ready for the rest of USA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44524669)

People were voting in places other than the east coast, but it wasnh't covered by anything other than local media.

Gah, not again! (1)

dskoll (99328) | about 8 months ago | (#44524759)

Electronic voting is not secure and can never be made secure.

I won't rehash all my arguments here; if you're interested read the "dskoll" comments on this LWN article [lwn.net].

Of course it is (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 8 months ago | (#44524973)

Of course New York City is ready for digital voting! Think of the opportunities for even greater voter fraud and intimidation.

Sensationalist headline (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | about 8 months ago | (#44525415)

Aside from the headline, I don't see a single mention of electronic voting in the summary, the article, or the candidate's website. Somebody at Motherboard just thought "digital voting" sounded more exciting then "digital campaigning".

Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44525965)

I first read that as, "Is New York ready for digital vomiting?"

Is there a Microsoft expo in town?

Survellience/tracking + secret ballot = ? (3, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about 8 months ago | (#44526131)

Perhaps people have noticed some recent news about surveillance and tracking, by government and business, of people's computer use.

That's how people want to submit their secret ballots?

Really bad idea (1)

TechnoCore (806385) | about 8 months ago | (#44527605)

With digital voting it is really easy to sell your vote, or to force someone (like members in a family) to vote in a certain way. Since who's to stop coercion when nobody is around?

Stop using up terms! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44527803)

First "eVoting" and now "Digital Voting"! Can we not waste all the good technology-using voting systems before we develop a trustless, distributed network for it? There is a bright future for such voting but it cannot come until we take as axiomatic that trusting an individual, a company, or a government, is utterly out of the question.

This is great! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 8 months ago | (#44528085)

Because if there is one thing you can accept as God's own truth, the Internet is secure, and no fraud is possible.

Let's roll out the e-vote!

Alternate headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44528797)

Is New York City Ready To Abolish The Secret Ballot?

Rig an election? (1)

Porchroof (726270) | about 8 months ago | (#44529891)

Politicians would like nothing better than to rig elections in their favor. And the easiest way to do that is to have the elections conducted over the Internet.

We're already in the process of losing our democracy to socialists and communists in the federal government. We don't need to accelerate the process by going digital.

This is my invention (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#44530023)

I came up with the concept of online voting years ago. The name I gave it back then was "Unauthorized Proxy Voting Made Easy".

NYC already has it (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 8 months ago | (#44530495)

Digital voting == voting with one's digits. Typically the center, longest one. Just ask any cab driver.

Check for New 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...