Comments on: Bringing out the vote. http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:51:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: andrew http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-951 andrew Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:07:02 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-951 The only way an electronic system could possibly work is this way: You vote at some kind of kiosk at the polling station. As soon as you're done a printout is made you have to look at the printout and then hit the "submit vote" button. Then you put the printout into a ballot box. That way there is an electronic vote but a paper recount is still possible. The only problem is that this is an order of magnitude more expensive than using scantron and the benifits are very slim. The only way an electronic system could possibly work is this way: You vote at some kind of kiosk at the polling station. As soon as you’re done a printout is made you have to look at the printout and then hit the “submit vote” button. Then you put the printout into a ballot box. That way there is an electronic vote but a paper recount is still possible. The only problem is that this is an order of magnitude more expensive than using scantron and the benifits are very slim.

]]> By: greg http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-950 greg Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:43:14 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-950 <i>This is because Oregon actually encourages people to vote by mail, resulting in a slightly higher voter turnout and a lot of waiting around for the election to end.</i> Which is a perfect example of why we should embrace electronic voting. Oregon had a higher turnout because they made it easier for people to vote. If all the technical and security hurdles could be overcome, what would be easier than voting online of through a phone? I'm not afraid of the new technology, I'm just afraid of the potential loopholes that allow people to fix elections. I think making all the voting software and hardware open source and providing a paper trail that allows for a manual recount (if necessary) would fix most of the potential problems with electronic solutions. This is because Oregon actually encourages people to vote by mail, resulting in a slightly higher voter turnout and a lot of waiting around for the election to end.

Which is a perfect example of why we should embrace electronic voting. Oregon had a higher turnout because they made it easier for people to vote. If all the technical and security hurdles could be overcome, what would be easier than voting online of through a phone?

I’m not afraid of the new technology, I’m just afraid of the potential loopholes that allow people to fix elections. I think making all the voting software and hardware open source and providing a paper trail that allows for a manual recount (if necessary) would fix most of the potential problems with electronic solutions.

]]> By: JoeW http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-949 JoeW Sat, 01 Nov 2003 00:22:10 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-949 Andrew is right, electronic solutions will just make things worse. Perhaps no one remembers, but it wasn't clear whether Oregon would go to Bush or Gore in 2000 until two weeks after election night. This is because Oregon actually encourages people to vote by mail, resulting in a slightly higher voter turnout and a lot of waiting around for the election to end. Andrew is right, electronic solutions will just make things worse.

Perhaps no one remembers, but it wasn’t clear whether Oregon would go to Bush or Gore in 2000 until two weeks after election night. This is because Oregon actually encourages people to vote by mail, resulting in a slightly higher voter turnout and a lot of waiting around for the election to end.

]]> By: andrew http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-948 andrew Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:54:41 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-948 The reason you have to vote in person is to keep people from buying your vote. If you could vote from unsupervised locations, what's to stop someone from giving $10 to every person he can find to vote for canidate X? This is why there is also no record you take from the polling place of who you voted for. It is designed to keep people from buying votes, or breaking kneecaps for votes. People keep suggesting high tech solutions to the voting problem and they are all wrong. The ideal system is a paper ballot where you either fill in the box next to the right name or connect the line. It's simple, easy to understand, can be counted electronically and most importantly can be recounted by hand. Any form of electronic voting or instant voting is too easily comprimised, and the worst part is there is no way to know if it happened. If we implement these systems it is only a matter of time before some cracker decides to prove a point and bart simpson wins an election. The best way to make elections more meaningful would be to have all elections be publically funded. You could still contribute to the campaign fund as a tax write off, but all the money would be divided equally. You would need a system of some sort to identify viable canidates by making them get X amount of signatures before they could recieve funding. This would do away with lots of corruption and make 3rd party (not to mention 4th 5th and 6th party) canadites viable. This would require a constitutional amendment however to escape the freedom of speech. You would also have to require anyone running adds suporting one canidate to cleary state who they are. Making sure Ford can't start a PAC called the conserned citizens for G.W. and running adds. The reason you have to vote in person is to keep people from buying your vote. If you could vote from unsupervised locations, what’s to stop someone from giving $10 to every person he can find to vote for canidate X? This is why there is also no record you take from the polling place of who you voted for. It is designed to keep people from buying votes, or breaking kneecaps for votes.

People keep suggesting high tech solutions to the voting problem and they are all wrong. The ideal system is a paper ballot where you either fill in the box next to the right name or connect the line. It’s simple, easy to understand, can be counted electronically and most importantly can be recounted by hand. Any form of electronic voting or instant voting is too easily comprimised, and the worst part is there is no way to know if it happened. If we implement these systems it is only a matter of time before some cracker decides to prove a point and bart simpson wins an election.

The best way to make elections more meaningful would be to have all elections be publically funded. You could still contribute to the campaign fund as a tax write off, but all the money would be divided equally. You would need a system of some sort to identify viable canidates by making them get X amount of signatures before they could recieve funding. This would do away with lots of corruption and make 3rd party (not to mention 4th 5th and 6th party) canadites viable. This would require a constitutional amendment however to escape the freedom of speech. You would also have to require anyone running adds suporting one canidate to cleary state who they are. Making sure Ford can’t start a PAC called the conserned citizens for G.W. and running adds.

]]> By: Earnest http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-947 Earnest Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:39:21 +0000 http://www.thetalentshow.org/2003/10/30/bringing-out-the-vote/#comment-947 The Constitution actually is the reason elections are held on one day. The Senate is charged with choosing the day (the Constitution uses the singular) that elections happen, and then, by law, the elections must be held on the same day throughout the union. The states are saddled with the task of figuring out how they want to have their electors chosen which is why Florida would have been lawfully able to have the state legislature choose Florida's electors. The Federal government supplies the outline while the states fill in the details. The only way to change the system is to either 1) promote a Constitutional amendment or 2) change California's election policies where lawful. California could, for instance, allow for internet voting, and it would still be lawful. The Constitution actually is the reason elections are held on one day. The Senate is charged with choosing the day (the Constitution uses the singular) that elections happen, and then, by law, the elections must be held on the same day throughout the union. The states are saddled with the task of figuring out how they want to have their electors chosen which is why Florida would have been lawfully able to have the state legislature choose Florida’s electors. The Federal government supplies the outline while the states fill in the details. The only way to change the system is to either 1) promote a Constitutional amendment or 2) change California’s election policies where lawful. California could, for instance, allow for internet voting, and it would still be lawful.

]]>