Online Voting? 103
Colin Winters asks: "While listening to NPR this morning, I heard that the Reform Party is going to have online voting this year. Does anyone know how are they setting this up? What kind of security measures to protect against fraud are they using? It seems that if this works for the Reform Party, it could also work for both the Democratic and the Republican parties, as well." A good and timely question considering that once again it's an Election Year. If online voting is to become a thing of the future, these issues and others will need to be dealt with if it is to be effective (and fair).
Details on the online voting at RPC (Score:3)
Not much information on their site about the technical details - I would be interested in knowing how they maintain security while keeping the voting of individuals private.
A great step in the right direction (Score:3)
These days, it seems most voters are too apathetic about the country (at least in the U.S.A.) to spend times researching the issues, reading the voter's manual, and then actually driving out to the polling place to vote. For people who never trust the government, there doesn't seem to be much reason to put any effort into the process -- but with online voting, all they have to do is skim one page and click to make their voice heard. It's hard to imagine that very people wouldn't vote if it was that easy.
Let's face it: most of the people that vote are either radicals or rich white guys. Middle America, as well as people like you and me -- cynical outsiders -- just don't bother to vote. And yet, these people are often the most vocal when it comes to what should be done about various issues. Online voting could finally give the people the power they wish they had -- there wouldn't be such a wide schism between policy and popular opinion.
Sure, true online voting may be a few decades off still, as there's still numerous security hassles and other issues to iron out. But it's exciting to see that we may finally be able to fulfill the promise of democracy at last.
Microsoft has donated millions (Score:2)
I've heard on ZDnet's streaming news broadcast that Microsoft donated a million dollars worth of software to the GOP for their national convention. To be 'fair', they've offered the same amount to all the other major parties.
Smells to me like they've found a way around the tightened restrictions on purchasing indulgances.
Questioning the validity (Score:2)
It seems to me that the first time online voting is used in local elections, you are going to have every election loser filing complaints with the election boards.
It would be best to restrict online elections to a small number of local races before it's fully implemented into national elections involving millions of people.
Social Underclass? (Score:3)
Good authentication (Score:1)
If the certificates are PKI-based, eg. using a public/private key system, authentication is simple and very secure.
Only one thing: can you be certain the person behind the computer is actually the one that's supposed to vote? Well, the same is true for regular voting (at least here in The Netherlands, you don't need to show anything except your voting form when you vote.)
Reform party? it's a simple system . . . (Score:3)
Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
Online Voting vs. Online Shopping (Score:4)
Online voting has the ability to be corrupted in several ways. First, and foremost, most people assume that a "one social, one time" style system could work, since anyone logging into an electronic voting booth would be required to give his/her voter info (some states have codes, others mimic SSN's) once a particular code, or SSN was given, and voting completed, that person would not be allowed to vote again.
There are a few major problems with this though. Quite a few Americans do not vote. While I am not going to go into the psychology, and ramifications of NOT voting, I will say that not participating is their right, and should not be violated. Electronic Voting "could" easily circumvent someones wishes simply because there are sites that have information on them that are more or less unsecure. I'm not saying someone with a couple kiddie scripts could do it, but a true cracker out to "change" the system would probably find it fairly easy.
IMO (which I do not consider humble, by the way) Not voting is extremely stupid. I defend it, but I don't personally think it's right. I also firmly beleive that stealing someone elses vote is criminal, much worse than that person not voting at all.
While there are security items that can cure this, they are still a long way in coming. Retinal Scans, SSN's and hard encryption, along with fingerprint scanners are one way to go. They already exist, and are becoming more mainstream every day. These will make online voting a reality, and a secured one at that.
There will always be ways to circumvent a system. There always were, even in the old "click and pull the lever" systems. Forged Voters ID cards, fake documents, phony voters lists, and multiple voting are a few. The problem was that with these, 1. A person had to physically be there to vote, which took time. 2. Someone had to come up with a voters list, which took time. 3. Documents had to be forged, which took time.
By allowing electronic voting, you can speed up the above three things to damn near instantaneous. A small group of people playing over a large field could have a exponentially more significant impact on the final tally than before.
I would approach electronic voting with eyes open, alert, and fully concious of the ramifications of getting it wrong the first time. After all, the people we chose to lead, lead us to where THEY want to go; pray you chose someone you can stand to follow.
krystal_blade
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:3)
Which Reform Party? (Score:1)
Because of the split the reporters are mostly reporting that they're overextended, they only planned on one convention.
Seeing the results of the primary (both electronic and snail-mail ballots, and a breakdown would be amusing, too) will be interesting, but irrelevant. The convention(s) will decide on the nominees. They might even figure out which convention was official by 7 November.
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
If you can be influenced that easily by your peers then you are a mealy mouthed democrat anyway and who cares how you vote, Big Grin.
Libertarians rule....themselves.
Ross, Pat, and Greg (Score:3)
why? (Score:2)
--
Booths (Score:4)
Aside from all the verification and other security concerns, confidentiality is one that had better not get overlooked.
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
Anyway, I think what they did to maintain secracy was to submit the user's indentification to one machine, which recorded that they had voted, and to sumbit the actual vote to another, supposedly with no way to reconnect the two pieces of information.
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
VeniVidiVoti (Voting book) (Score:1)
It's really not useable at the moment (but for the i18n part), but I'm working on it, and would gladly receive any feedback about the principles.
To resume them: they try to mix delegation and direct participation, thus would allow for a very lively sort of process. Although it would probably not apply to anything like laws, they could permit to democratically create any sort text for any sort of group.
Benefits? (Score:2)
With regards to how you can secure this system, well, you certainly can't do it over the net until governments start recognising electronic signatures and biometric authentication is more common. At the moment, if all a website does is ask me for my electoral role number, then I can pretend to be anybody on the electoral role. It's a bit like the Amazon system whereby you can submit a review as the author, and the authentication to make sure you are the author is a form that pops up saying "Are you really the author of this book? Yes/No". Not exactly the best way to run a democracy.
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:2)
You decide to put up a fence in your yard and the inspector tells you you need a zoning variance to use the land on the border of your lot. You get your case together, and go before the local zoning board in your city and make your case for a variance. Your case is apealed to the city council along with a group of neibors seeking the same variance.
During the hearing, as each citizen gets up to make their case, the councel quietly passes a piece of paper among themselves as they listen. On the paper is the voting records of each citizen. City council, Mayor, Sherrif, Corener, Judges, and the political affileation of each speaker.
Quietly, to themselves, each city coucil member thinks to themselves "Will I loose a vote if I blow this person off?", "Did this person vote for my opponent?", "Did they organize for a party other than my own?", and the soft bigotry of voter idenification is revealed as the citizens loose their appeal for a variance as their voting records work against them.
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:2)
The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:3)
Why is this?
Well, here are a few of my reasons:
the web isn't the answer to everything! (Score:3)
I know it's good for a lot of things, and maybe voting on small things can be one of them under certain circumstances. I don't think I'll ever believe that the net (as it is today) is anywhere near an ideal infrastructure for voting in major and important elections.
Even if all the encryption and validity and security and anonymity issues were worked out, there's nothing to guarantee that a neighbour hasn't walked into my home, pointed a gun in my face and ordered me to vote for someone.
The net could play a role in some areas, but allowing people to vote from places where the environment isn't controlled is a bad thing. Allow this and there's no way to guarantee that voters are voting at their own free will.
===
Re:Benefits? (Score:1)
Clinton recently signed a bill that made electronic signatures legal and as valid as handwritten signatures. Granted, though, that the infrastructure and security to deal with this isn't in place.
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:3)
I work for a students' association, and I remember a coouple of years back we tried a form of electronic voting - in this case using a telephone system rather than the internet.
We'd always had low turnouts for elections, and it was hoped that by being more convenient this would improve the situation. Quite the opposite, in fact. The turnout was one of the lowest in the student union's history. Worse yet, a large proportion of the people screwed it up and didn't get their votes counted at all.
I realise it's not quite the same thing, but the principle's the same. People don't trust that new-fangled technology bollix, and when they use it they screw it up.
And when you throw in the fact that students tend to be more technically literate than most...
Most people can handle the technology behind a felt tip pen. Let's not confuse them.
Re:Details on the online voting at RPC (Score:1)
Yes, eBallot's web site provides limited detail about the system here [eballot.net].
Here are some issues/concerns of mine that readily come to mind.
Some of these have some seemingly obvious solutions; security, for example, has been adressed with encryption for on-line purchases. e-Commerce sites are very different in that they'd like me to make more than one purchase, but that's not such a good idea for voting <grin>.
Maybe the code should be open-sourced? Let's not go through "Security Through Obscurity" AGAIN!
Reform Party (Score:3)
I think the other posts are covering online voting's problems and advantages pretty well, so I'll write about the other half of the question: the Reform Party and what the web can do for them. Disclaimer: I don't like them, but I will try very hard to be impartial.
The Reform Party is falling apart. Two years ago, when Governor Ventura was elected, the Reform Party was deeply divided between Ross Perot's people (pro-balanced budget, protectionist) and Jesse Ventura's faction (basically libertarian). Governor Ventura's campaign team made heavy use of the Web and email to organize his campaign, and received no help from the national Reform Party. Ventura felt that Perot was trying to dictate everything to his party.
Eventually, everything came to a head during the race for a Reform Party Chairman. Ventura and Perot each had their favorite guy, and Ventura's won. Perot spent about a year undermining him, and then his faction organized a 'surprise general meeting' where only Perot people managed to show up. They voted the chairman out, over objections that the convention had been illegally called. At one point, the situation at the meeting was so strong that the police had to be called to break up a fight. Ventura quit the party, saying the party was dead.
That's when Pat Buchanan showed up. His views are very different from Perot's. He believes in a national industrial policy, heavy protectionism, opposes immigration, etc. In many ways, he is the opposite of the Libertarians-- a liberal radical on economics, and a conservative radical on social issues.
He ran for President, and this time, Perot laid low. I don't know if he is trying to get out of politics (realizing that the Reform Party is pretty much dead) or if he is just trying to let the party onto its own feet (I think the Ventura thing killed the possibility of that happening).
Perot's faction, though, is pissed. Buchanan won the primary, but they say that he used non-Reform Party voters to do it (the point of a primary is to let a party know who its members support-- there isn't much point in having one if many of the voters will jump off the ticket if their man loses). Buchanan says he has expanded the appeal of the Reform party. The dispute got so tough that apparantly, the two factions are each holding their own convention, have nominated their own candidates, and each claim that they are the One True Reform Party.
Whichever party is the One True Reform Party is entitled to fifteen million dollars in federal campaign funds, so this question will probably end up in the courts. Ultimately, the Reform Party still isn't sure just what it actually stands for. It originally tried to be a vote for a moderate in a time when the Two Big Parties were seen as radical, ideological opposites who couldn't agree on anything. Now, people are more worried that the parties look too much the same. That pretty much squeezes the Reform Party out.
Now, at last: how will this affect on-line voting? Well, I'm not sure what they will be voting for at this stage-- they have their candidates (in fact, they have too many candidates!) and they have had their convention, such as it is. The web might have been a good forum for them to reconcile their differences, or hammer out a set of guiding principles. But their problem is that they are not a community.
Everyone on Slashdot starts with a certain level of similarity-- RMS and ESR (to shamelessly pick at a longstanding political feud) are still very similar in many ways. I don't know that Reform Party members have anything in common other than a feeling that they don't like where the country is going. They have formed into cults of personality which all have radically different views on what the party should be. And so, to be honest, I don't think that the internet can band-aid over all these differences and make their party work.
I think that Perot hung on for too long, and by not allowing the party to digest his views and Governor Ventura's, he turned the party politics into an adversarial mess. Parties are built on compromise and dialogue-- Perot basically destroyed the faction which didn't agree with him. I think the party is now suffering for it, and will finish flying to pieces this year. Add to that that people want the major parties to be more, not less, radicalized this year (that's why the Greens and Libertarians are doing so well), and you pretty much leave no place for Perot's people.
How about this (Score:1)
"Both" Reform Parties Nix E-Votes (Score:3)
most of europe not connected? idiot (Score:1)
Why I don't vote (Score:1)
Agree or disagree, that is my opinion, and unless someone can show me a better way, I'm sticking to it.
Re:PLEASE MODERATE (ot) (Score:1)
I guess you mean this one [slashdot.org]. I don't think it will make it into the archives. I think (not that sure) that it has to be above 0 to get archived. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
//Frisco
--
"No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."
do you want a unique id? (Score:1)
Reform Party (Score:1)
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:1)
a modern suggestion (Score:2)
Everyone votes with their credit cards. a quick swipe and press a button. It makes sure you're eighteen, and it excludes anticonsumerists, poor people, immigrants and slackers. Do you want those people setting your taxes? right.
two votes for platinum.
Re:Why I don't vote (Score:1)
Re:do you want a unique id? (Score:1)
Re:The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:2)
And optionally:
He describes a protocol which fulfulls all but #7. It's pretty complicated, but most of that falls on the implentation. It also doesn't seem to be susceptible to a replay attack, if implemented properly. The burden of proof on the individual would probably be about as valid and difficult as it is now. Instead of a voter registration card and an SSN as an ID, you'd have a public key, or something like that.
Voting Online vs. Voting from home (Score:1)
If you allow anyone to log in and vote over the web, it opens up the door to massive fraud, because people can pretty much use whatever tools they have at their disposal to comprimise the system. Our solution was to only allow online voting from certain public places with internet access, such as libraries, schools, and the like. In these places the access at terminals is usually more limited, and monitored, reducing the ability to easily do damage. With specially designed software running to do the access (not just something over the web) it would possibly be even harder.
This compromise doesn't give the option of voting in one's underwear at home, but it would increase the number of polling places, and possibly the hours of operation.
I was watching C-SPAN (Score:2)
Firstly, this wasn't only online. They conducted the ballot via mail, phone, as well as online. Also, the way they verified the votes is the same way they verify all votes whether online or not: the voting registration numbers. The internet voting was only open for a short window of time anyway...like 3 days if I recall correctly and the dates were mailed to reform party members.
As to the validity of the vote, both people interviewed assured that no votes were counted twice. Even so, the validity of the vote has been questioned and has something to do with the breakup of the reform party. I don't know enough about what happened to comment on that aspect.
Re:Details on the online voting at RPC (Score:1)
Re:Why I don't vote (Score:1)
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Until all of you get off your butts and go out there and try, you don't know. Did you know that when Jessie Ventura was running, there was the biggest turnout of 18-25 year olds EVER?
Maybe the libertarian candidate won't win, but by casting that vote for him/her it sends a message to those currently in control and it shows that atleast someone believes in that cause.
To get people to figure out that there are alternatives, it simply takes some news worthy events. If voters started turning out in droves for a single candidate (not one of the big two), then the world would have to take notice.
Online Reform vote. (Score:2)
Re:Booths (Score:2)
Linux geek voting... (Score:1)
Online Voting & Direct Democracy (Score:2)
Once the initial overhead of setting up online voting was through, the cost to hold elections/referendums would be low. We may not be ready for this yet (many people don't have access to the internet, and we need to iron out the security detials..) but in the coming years, this could become more and more possibile. This is the reason that I think online voting is an exciting prospect.
Will the the real reform party please stand up. (Score:2)
Buchanan received 49,529 votes to Hagelin's 28,539 votes in the primary balloting. Now they are both claiming to the be the "Real Reform party", they will likely end up in court to try and fight for thier gub'ment handout.
personally, I think that Buchanan is being a good little 'publican and is (knowing that no resonabley mineded moderate would consider voting for him), destoying the reform party and taking away the conservitive protest vote (thus helping bush).
Seems easy to me... (Score:1)
eVoting is good for mini-referendums (Score:1)
Therefore we elect our representatives to be bored for us (at the price they are allowed to do whatever decission in our name). And this is where eVoting could make big change! With eVoting we can:
Electronic Voting (Score:1)
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
msgto.com [msgto.com] is a free web based email system with spam blocking filters built in. They're grrrreat. They've given flawless performance for months, and will soon move out of beta.
Re:The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:1)
If voters have the option of rejecting ALL candidates, then negative campaigning, slick sales-talk and promotional campaigns will be less effective and much less popular.
(In the UK, at least) you have the option to Abstain. You go to the voting place, hand over your form thingy, take your slip of paper and scribble all over it.
Unfortunately, the majority of people couldn't be bothered to do that. Those who do vote may choose to abstain, but you have to remember: if people made thier votes based on quantifiable (sp?) measures of performance, election candidates wouldn't need to put on makeup before going on TV.
If I wanted to secure a voting system, I'd have computers connect to a server, then have people put thier election smart-cards into a slot on thier computer. The computer recieves, say, 1kb of random data from the server (different for every voter, of course), signed with the server's private key. The voter's computer then feeds the random data to the smart card. The card has been programmed with a built-in private/public key combo. The public part is also held be the government. The smart card signs the random data and feeds it back to the computer. The computer forwards the (signed) random data to the server. The server checks the signature, checks the random data is the same as it sent out, and checks the person hasn't already voted in this election. The server then sends the voter's computer one of, say, 5 blocks of random data, each 2kb in size. The choice of blocks that are sent rotates, so each block is sent out an equal number of times. When this block is being transmitted it is, of course, encrypted to the private key that is held on the smart card. The voter's computer recieves the data and sends it to the smart card. The smart card decrypts it and works out it's SHA-1 hash, which it returns to the computer. The computer sends this hash to the server, acknowledging the block has been correctly recieved. The voter's computer then breaks the link to the first server, and connects to the other. Let's call it the 'booth server'. The client computer gets some random data from the smart card, and sends it to the booth server. The booth server signs it and sends it back. The voter computer then feeds the signed data to the smart card, along with the 2kb data block it recieved earlier. The computer then asks the voter for thier vote. This too is fed to the smart card. The smart card checks the signature from the booth server and, if it is valid, decrypts the 2kb data block. Then it appends the vote to the 2kb data block encrypts it, then sends it to the booth server. The booth server decrypts it, counts the votes, and makes a note of which of the 5 2kb data blocks was used. When the voting it complete, the booth server checks the same number of each type of block was used. If so, the vote was secure.
But I must say, the idea of Joe Sixpack switching windows to vote as he waits for 'playboy.com' to load is a bit scary...
Michael
...another insightless comment from Michael Tandy.
Distributed initiative taking (Score:1)
In a previous posting someone pointed out that one may not want to vote for any of the candidates or alternatives. In many countries, including the US, I would believe, there is a huge barrier of entry, which means that we are not getting the best people to the best places, or the best initiatives to choose between.
It is right there on-line activity can make a change. Just look at slashdot, where it is infinitely easier to speak out than by asking a newspaper if you could please write their political column next Thursday.
Hopefully, more software will emerge that will enhance the selection process of good candidates and good policy by using e.g. moderation, voting, "packing" (people self-organising stepwise behind a candidate or text, just came up with the term, pick another one if it sounds fuzzy:-).
Re:Voting Online vs. Voting from home (Score:1)
Re:the web isn't the answer to everything! (Score:2)
Even if all the encryption and validity and security and anonymity issues were worked out, there's nothing to guarantee that a neighbour hasn't walked into my home, pointed a gun in my face and ordered me to vote for someone.
No, but there's nothing in the current system to stop you going to vote, giving in your ID, getting the slip of paper, going into the booth, and taking out a digital camera and snapping the paper. Give in the voting slip, go home, print off 10 identical forms, vote 'liberal'(or whatever) on all of them, then go to your mate's house and give him the 10 pieces of paper. He goes to vote, gives in his ID, gets his paper, votes 'liberal', then gets out the 10 additional voting slips, and as he puts his paper into the vote box, putting in the other 10. Voilia! Your vote importance is amplified 10 times.
The truth of the matter is nobody would go to the bother for just one extra vote. Or 10 extra votes. They might for 100 votes, but they'd get found out when people noticed the big wad of 100 papers they were trying to slot into the box for counting. If your neighbour forces you to vote one way, call the police and have them haul him off to jail for the next few years.
Just my $0.02,
Michael Tandy
...another insightless comment from Michael Tandy.
Re:Social Underclass? (Score:1)
Um leaving the balance of power exactly the same you mean? :P
Poor people are less likely to vote, generally as far as they are concerned it doesn't make much difference who gets in.
Reform "Party" (Score:1)
I like paper ballots (Score:1)
I play with computers
I own computers
I read on computers
I write on computers
I write about computers
I program computers
I teach computers to anyone who will stand still long enough to listen.
In the town of Littleton, MA, I vote on a paper ballot, and I like it just fine.
How it can be made to work... (Score:4)
Through normal channels, each person gets their voter registration card. This card has a unique number on it, very long to reduce chance of being able to guess one correctly. Person goes to computer, sets up key pair, connects to central server, and encrypts and signs their number + ID info (name, age, etc). This proves that key pair belongs to person. Then comes the actual voting protocol. Let's assume for simplicity only one thing to vote on (Pat v. whoever).
I create 10 votes for pat and 10 votes for Ross (I am pretty sure it's not him but I don't remember the real guy's name; I'll use Ross). Each vote consists of a GUID, and who the vote is for. The GUID is a long number (128bit; longer if neede to prevent collisions) that is randomly generated. However, each Ross vote is paired with a Pat vote (same GUID). I then Blind the votes with a blinding function -- need the blinding factor to get the vote out. This is actually just multiplication by a large number; DES or equiv doesn't work here. I then sign each vote and encrypt to central office.
Central office gets all the votes, picks one to make valid, and asks for the blinding factors for the rest. It then decrypts, verifies, and unblinds these. It then checks that each is a valid vote and that the GUIDs come in pairs. For the last vote it decrypts, verifies, signs with a DIFFERENT KEY PAIR, encrypts to voter, and returns the vote (both of them). The voter then decrypts the vote, unblinds it, picks one, and sends it in to vote. This last step (submission) is not connected to the others; I could put my vote on a disk and take it to the library to vote if I'm paranoid.
So, this meets all the needed requirements:
One person, one vote: registration + GUID (can't submit vote more than once; central office won't sign more than one.
Anonymous: when I send in my vote, it no longer has my key connected to it, and the central office doesn't know the GUID.
can't be faked: partly in the registration, partly in the crypto.
Third party can't see: its encrypted
Third party can't change: same
I can cverify that I voted and who I voted for: I can send a request "who did this GUID vote for" to office, and it can tell me. If I'm paranoid, I worry about the central office tracking IPs and such, so I don't ask or ask from a library etc.
Did I miss anything?
---
Re:The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:2)
Once there, ask the media, the various political organizations there, in fact just about anyone with any awareness of the shambolic political system in Oregon, if my assertion is correct.
Since my assertion comes from just these people, I suspect you'll hear an answer of "YES"!
Wasted? (Score:1)
It's like a mantra, I swear - "a third party vote is a wasted vote". The media push two candidates, the parties push two candidates, and pretty soon we all believe there are only two candidates.
I used to feel that I shouldn't vote because I couldn't (didn't want to) keep up with all the back-and-forth maneuvering that goes on with the media and the parties. But it's possible to read up on the parties and the candidates [speakout.com]. You can even find out where your views on the issues fall on the political map and compare it to the candidates [speakout.com]. There are some really brilliant thinkers in the various newsgroups, unfiltered by corporate sponsorthink. Granted, some of the contributors are a taco short of a combo plate, but hey, at least we don't have to let the TV think for us anymore. We can also count on Salon [salon.com] to provide good coverage of the issues and candidates. It doesn't take much time at all to become informed enough to make a confident vote.
There are really no excuses left. Get informed and vote.
Re:The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:2)
Clue #1: It wasn't his political party
Clue #2: It wasn't any other political group, either.
Re:Questioning the validity (Score:1)
You could program any kind of checks and balances. But no matter how good the system is, if John Q. Public is suspicious of the process, then you've defeated the purpose of having elections.
Most folks can understand the ideas behind the physical voting process. You walk into a school building. You show an ID card. You get a ballot. You put it in a box. When the box is opened, a lot of people work together and keep an eye on each other.
To be sure, there is some occasional fraud, but the sheer number of living, breathing people who are involved helps insure that the fraud is kept to a minimum. And it's something that everybody can understand.
Online voting puts that whole process into a black box, and the people are told to trust it; yet few of them have any clue about what goes on inside the big machines. If people don't understand the process, they're far more likely to be suspicious of the results.
If "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed," then it's important to maintain the public's trust of the voting system. And the best way to maintain that faith is to employ a system of checks and balances that is open and visible to all.
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:1)
Republican Convention Online? (Score:1)
If they want to make it easier... (Score:1)
Re:Social Underclass? (Score:2)
The only real problem I see with online voting is that the polling place is not controlled, i.e. a parent could make their kid vote a specific way.
Re:Online Voting vs. Online Shopping (Score:2)
Actually, it would be smarter to just reassign social security numbers for this purpose.. and make it seriously illegal for anyone, but you and the social security administration, to know your social security number. Your employer would just make up a number for you, give you the number at the end of the year, and your tax return would tell the social security andministration to move the funds reserved for your by your employer to your account.
Re:Why I don't vote (Score:1)
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:1)
Re:the destruction of the Reform Party (Score:2)
The "John Hagelin" idiots have really destroyed the Reform Party. If you look at the Natural Law Party page you can see that this guy has NO chance of getting votes -- the whole NLP is a bunch of eastern mystics who want to use 'transcendential meditation' to solve all the world's problems... yeah, right. This guy should be running for the Legalize LSD Party, not the Reform Party.
Pat Buchanan might not be very popular in some circles, but at least he gives the Reform Party some legitimacy. He is the right wing's equivalent of Ralph Nader.
I pretty much agree with you except on Buchanan, but I didn't want to inject more opinions than necessary into my analysis of the Reform Party's structural problems.
It is a common misconception that Buchanan is radically conservative. But George Will argued persuasively in 1992 and 1996 although Buchanan's old job was to be conservative on Crossfire, that his actual beliefs on most issues were radically liberal (government controls on trade and the economy). What excites radical conservatives was that he was very conservative on social issues (gays, abortion, etc).
Not many reporters listened to Will at the time, but it is telling that as soon as Republicans who were radical conservatives on all issues appeared (Alan Keyes, Gary Baurer), Buchanan lost nearly all his support.
When a primary ends, the factions form a compromise based on their voting strength. They form a message for their party which everyone in the party can live with and which can win the general election. But how do you compromise between Hagelin and Buchanan? They're nothing alike, and that's why the Reform Party is breaking up-- it has no overarching message. It is a cautionary example for people who want to just vote 'no'. I could summarize the Greens, Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats in about five minutes. All we know about the Reform party is who's in it.
I agree with you that Ventura isn't a big-l libertarian. He would be at home as a New Democrat or a Libertarian Republican (both are strong, growing factions in their party). I think he chose the Reform Party for recognition, but also because with them, he wouldn't have to compromise on his message. Very rare that you can do that and win an election-- it only works if you accidentially represent a good compromise between the major parties.
Re:Online voting is a horrible idea (Score:1)
Bad idea (Score:1)
e-voting would generate a perfect market for votes (Score:1)
There are two responses to this. The easy way, is to view the market as the Right Answer(tm) to all things and view this as a feature. In this case, we might as well make it easier and give each user a chit than can be used to make their vote. This chit then could be traded on ebay at the going rate.
On the other hand, for those who feel that democracy is supposed to implement one-person one-vote instead of one-buck one-vote would want to undermine this market. The only way of doing that is to make it very difficult to make place a vote. For example, you might require the person to send dozens of emails back and forth to the system--any one of which can change the result of the final vote. (For example, use a parity function.) Then unless the purchaser watches all the emails over a period of weeks, they wouldn't know who they voted for.
Unfortunately the democratic solution only works if you make e-voting truely an anoying and costly way of voting.
Bummer that not everything can be solve by computers.
Re:Microsoft has donated millions (Score:1)
Just my point. Except that I think the whole process deserves a little more cynicism than the popular media is giving it.
An interesting fact is that despite Bill's wealth and status as 'the wealthiest man in the world', he is not, as a percentage of the GNP, the wealthiest in American history (Business 2.0, August 8, 2000, p. 178).
Bill's not a dumb person though and knowing full well what a powerful tool information management can be, he's fertilising the political arena with 'gifts'--gifts that in turn make the politicians not only grateful, but dependent.
This is significantly different from the influence of Big Tabacco or Oil money.
Re:How it can be made to work... (Score:1)
The election already happened (news link) (Score:1)
Here's a Wired News story [wired.com] about the election.
Re:How it can be made to work... (Score:3)
Basically, I wrote a (poorly optimized) Java program that did crypto. It couldn't do this, but I think I could have made it do it in about 30s/vote; Now, that is Sun Java 1.2 compiler and VM, which isn't fast, so I would assume about 5 s/vote on my PII-350. A few thousand (hundred thousand?) votes would probably need some sort of clustered thing. Now, if you put in special hardware to do the RSA, like say a 256-bit integer multipier chip, it gets much faster. The chip could be very deeply pipelined and run very fast, because there are lots of independent multiplications to do. But then, that's expensive too. So, I think it owuld be somewhat expensive, but not TOO much more so than what's currently used.
---
One potential drawback... (Score:1)
The Vote Counting (Score:1)
I suppose that one could assert that one point of weakness is enough. Or question opening oneself further to manipulation. But if the counting is compromised, then the votes don't matter. And I've frequently wondered if people could really have voted "that way".
OTOH, so many people are so
If it weren't so implausible, then I would campaign for open source vote counting programs. Of course then one would need to worry about tamper proof communication protocols (secure sockets good enough? GPG?)
OTOH, if the above is ever to mean anything, then secure voter ID is also necessary. But I'd prefer credit-card like information over social security numbers. The trouble with actual credit cards is that some folk don't have any accounts, and some have several. But would anyone want a centralized registrar of this information? (OK, there are good reasons. But there are LOTS of drawbacks!)
I don't currently have a solution, but guiding principles are that centralized controls (chokepoints) are to be avoided during the design and that verification by anyone who wants to take the effort should be possible. Usage of standard modules whenever otherwise feasible is also a good guide.
The Democrats Have done this Already .... Kind of (Score:1)
Slashdot article about it [slashdot.org]
To vote on-line from home, voters would fill out a form they could download from the party's Web site, choose a personal identification code, sign it and mail it to the party. Once the signature is verified, confirmation would be sent to the voter by e-mail. On election day, the voter would open the party's Web site, enter the identification code and cast the electronic ballot. that is how abcnews.go.com said they did it.
Article on abcnews [go.com]
Re:Why I don't vote (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:1)
Re:Questioning the validity (Score:1)
Re:Booths (Score:2)
It's just like those signs they have outside of convenience stores, that say something like "Clerk cannot open safe." Restricting the clerk's priveleges may save his life.
Read Risks Forum about Online Voting (Score:2)
While anyone may submit to Risks, some of the people who post there are respected experts in their fields, and will often write very well-thought-out criticism of online and telephone voting schemes as they are actually practiced - usually without much regard for security and privacy - as opposed to the ideal schemes thought up by security experts and cryptographers.
I can't remember any specific posts on online voting, lets see what the search form [ncl.ac.uk] produces:
Just searching for "voting" produces dozens of submissions, mostly related to computerized voting - that is, electronic voting booths, which have their own reliability and security issues but are not what we're discussing here - but see Computer Causes Chaos in Brazilian Election [ncl.ac.uk] in which a program designed to weed out fraudulent voters (like dead people) canceled the voting rights of 70,000 twins.
Searching for "voting;online" produces a few hits such as the announcement of Arizona's online voting [ncl.ac.uk] and a comment that there is no promise of privacy in online voting [ncl.ac.uk] - that your identity and your vote won't be correllated, which is forbidden for conventional voting.
Wonder about the accuracy of unofficial online votes? Check out the risks of paying attention to uncontrolled e-voting [ncl.ac.uk] in which a public opinion voting site on abortion funnelled votes from both sides to the anti-abortion side.
Better than RL voting (Score:1)
I don't want to make a special trip to wait in line and mess with this hassle of somebody finding my name and marking it. Further I don't want to get up early in the morn before I go to work to vote and after work I want to go to bed.
If it were possible to vote online I would defintally do it. I'd much rather login with my voter number and password click a few buttons and log off in my PJ's before I hit the sack.
Re:A great step in the right direction (Score:1)
Democracy instead is about getting out and making your voice heard not through the intermediary of HTTP 1.1 but real-time and in the flesh. That's why the established organzations--everyone from the media to local politicians--were held so much in thrall by a handful of demonstrators in Philly in a way that a whole stack of threads around here could never equal.
Re:Threat to "secret ballot"? (Score:1)
However, this only works in situations where people aren't locked up for days before the vote- spoiling your ballot afterwards probably wouldn't be allowed (although that's not a totally stupid idea- it amounts to a vote of no confidence.)
Re:the destruction of the Reform Party (Score:1)
Libertarians for Life [l4l.org]
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians [plagal.org]
Links to other radical and "leftist" pro-life groups [mindspring.com]
Rosanne Rosanna Dana (Score:1)
Oh wait. Did you say online voiting? I thought you said online gaming. They need more sax and violins in online gaming.
Smore comments on online voting (Score:1)
If you offer electronic voting, the barriers to access are lowered. That's not necessarily a good thing. It used to be, you'd have to get your ass off the couch, walk down to your local town hall/library/school and mark yer ballot. If you honestly cared enough to vote, you'd take the effort to do so and made your choice count. Electronic voting would be as cautious as me filling out a Slashdot poll-inconsequential because the bar is so low anyways. Click click.
Now, that said, take it to the next level-now, special interest groups don't have to try hard to convince reasonable minded people to out and vote. Usually, you round up a bunch of people, put them in a bus and drive to the polling station. But now, they can just herd their followers through a portal!
What ends up happening, I'll guess, is that lots of minor special interest candidates end up getting more recognition than they deserve-splintering the vote. Because when more people get a voice through a lowered level of entry, the end result is usually more noise.
I'll offer the situation with publishing-it used to be, only certain people got to write for magazines because there was an abstraction of editors, publishers and peers that one had to deal with as a writer. Nowadays, anyone can write their own web page, and get some form of authenticity.
This sort of noise is acceptable, because we the reader get to synthesize and deal with all these sources. But in voting, you don't get the chance-those thousands of voices are not just spouting an opinion, they're making a choice. Without the layers of abstraction of having to get yourself out to the voting booth, speeches, campaigns, we'll end up with a million choices, a million decisions and no clear winner.
--Calum
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The impossibility of Online Voting (Score:1)
THERE IS NOTHING BINDING A VOTER TO A COMPUTERIZED VOTE,
at least not in a way that perserves some of the properties of traditional physical voting the some of us may take for granted in the "First" world.
Here are some scenarios to demonstrate my point:
1) I am a big, fat, abusive jerk and I want to make sure my family (or my friends, or even total strangers) vote for the candidate I want. I watch them vote (with baseball bat handy).
This can't happen when everyone who votes does it in a physically secure location.
2) I am an even bigger, fatter, more abusive, jerk and I don't trust my family (or my friends or complete strangers) even under threat of the baseball bat. I'll just vote for them. If passwords, etc, are needed, I'll just beat it out of them.
Unless I really look like the people I want to impersonate, this can't happen in a physical voting situation.
3) I am an unemployed misfit in the Phillipines who has nothing better to do than to release computer viruses. I disable millions of computers during voting day.
4) I am the government. How the hell am I going to securely send private keys to my 100000000 voters and correctly bind each key to a particular voter? Is there a feasible system to do this which is fraud-proof?
5) I am unscrupulous. I secretly offer to buy people's computer voting identities for a princely sum. Since I am funded by some large communist government with a record of meddling in American elections, I can buy many votes.
These are just examples. The key to current voting methods is the assurance of _physical_ security. It will be many many years before computer technology can assume that responsibility. Any feasible computerized voting system (especially on the large scale) must have a way of binding physical identities to computerized votes in a way that perserves the "desired" properties of voting listed above not only after the computerized vote has been cast, but before, as well.
Schneier likes to talk about these "side-channel attacks", as he calls them, when discussing other types of protocols, and it would seem that this philosophy should apply to the secure election protocols as well.
Donny
Re:Too bad Luddites, it's already happened (Score:2)
What amazes me is that ANY person on Slashdot would identify more with tyrany than with those being abused. ESPECIALLY after the Napster, DeCSS and DMCA affairs.
Republic/Democracy (Score:2)
Of course for a democracy of any kind to work, citizens must be informed (witness our own democracy). But I have faith that populism will create better citizens - give people a reason to care, and they will.
Re:Social Underclass? (Score:2)
Oh, and let's add one more little group: white male landowners.
That's it. Nobody else can vote.
(That was sarchasm.)