Voting online is coming to fruition

[Oldgamer]

Democrats propose Internet voting in 2016, making Republicans also consider the idea

Link to News Article

I hope they do, and that they do a good job of making sure that the voting process can't be tampered with through online voting. But I think this idea is well over due.

 

[Anarchist420]

ross perot proposed something similar in '92 and i doubt the Neo-Republicans are going to go along with this given that they are the party that wrote the monarcho-mercantilist U.S. Constitution (back when they were known as "Federalists").

 

[JManInPhoenix]

If it is done right, that would be awesome. Somehow I think it would end up being like healthcare.gov and wide open to hack/abuse.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm sure there will be those who will oppose this as they would have to prove who they are in order to get a voter verification number/special password which would be no different than showing an ID to vote.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Pppfftt!!

Dead people don't have internet access - how the fuck are THEY going to get to vote?!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm sure there will be those who will oppose this as they would have to prove who they are in order to get a voter verification number/special password which would be no different than showing an ID to vote.

As long as the option for in person voting without unnecessary burdens remains available I don't see too many people taking issue. Just my opinion obviously.

 

[michal1980]

i wonder if it will require an id?

 

[frowertr]

What are these "burdens" that I keep hearing about? How f'ing hard is it to show an I.D. at the polling stations when asked? If you can't be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

[thraashman]

What are these "burdens" that I keep hearing about? How f'ing hard is it to show an I.D. at the polling stations when asked? If you can't be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

And who the fuck are you do decide what should and shouldn't be considered in "allowing" someone to vote? The Constitution disagrees with your opinion in this matter.

 

[PokerGuy]

To me online voting makes logical sense, but there is a much higher risk of fraud/hacking/breaches and so forth, and there would need to be a LOT of real safeguards in place to make sure the process is legit. After all, with votes coming in online (rather than a physical ballot), it would be much easier for someone to muck around with the results and nobody would know about it.

Aside from assurances of legitimacy / no tampering, I don't know if it benefits us to have millions of people who can't be bothered to even exert minimal effort to vote added to the voter base. Think of the millions of facebook idiots and how they would impact the vote if they could do so without any effort whatsoever. :\

It makes logical sense, but there are some real downsides to it as well.

 

[frowertr]

And who the fuck are you do decide what should and shouldn't be considered in "allowing" someone to vote? The Constitution disagrees with your opinion in this matter.

Wut? If you can't prove your identification, you don't get to vote. Why the hatred? There are plenty of things you can't do if you can't prove your identity.

Who the F are you to say thay just any ol'e person can vote without I.D.? Can any ol'e person open a checking account without I.D.? Can any ol'e person buy airline tickets without I.D.? Of course they can't. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with safety and security. And as far as voting goes, it has to do with making sure there is no fraud.

WTF is the big deal anyway? Anyone can get a government I.D. card. Even if you don't have a Drivers License. Get over yourself man. No one is asking for a blood sample, urine analysis, or DNA screening. It's a friggin I.D. card. If the people trying to vote can't even show that, then I don't want them voting. They probably aren't contributing to society at that point anyway.

Gheesh...

 

[DrPizza]

I'm trying to figure out how this could happen that was free or even relatively free of hacking, breeches, etc. Every time we see a company's security was breached, it's no big deal - issue new credit cards, etc. - in this case, we could have someone win an election, and the fraud discovered months afterward, if ever. While in cases where one candidate is favored very highly over another, if the underdog wins, it might raise questions. But, in a very close race, per quality polls ahead of time, minor changes might be undetectable.

 

[BoberFett]

Finally! Ron Paul stands a chance!

 

[waggy]

lol after the healthcare.org rollout? yeah i think it will be pushed back several decades.

 

[BoberFett]

And who the fuck are you do decide what should and shouldn't be considered in "allowing" someone to vote? The Constitution disagrees with your opinion in this matter.

The Constitution doesn't say anything mental health tests and waiting periods to bear arms, but the left seems to have no problems putting all kinds of stipulations on that. And voting is a far more dangerous act than owning a weapon.

 

[Bowfinger]

To me online voting makes logical sense, but there is a much higher risk of fraud/hacking/breaches and so forth, and there would need to be a LOT of real safeguards in place to make sure the process is legit. After all, with votes coming in online (rather than a physical ballot), it would be much easier for someone to muck around with the results and nobody would know about it.

Aside from assurances of legitimacy / no tampering, I don't know if it benefits us to have millions of people who can't be bothered to even exert minimal effort to vote added to the voter base. Think of the millions of facebook idiots and how they would impact the vote if they could do so without any effort whatsoever. :\

It makes logical sense, but there are some real downsides to it as well.

Note that this story is only about caucus (primary) voting, not actual elections. It's probably OK for caucuses, but I question the use of online voting in regular elections. Not only would it make insider fraud easier, it would also make coercion easier. With in-person voting, one's vote is secret. With online voting, someone can look over your shoulder to ensure you vote the way they want. Even easier, they can take your credentials, whatever they may be, and cast your vote for you. It seems inherently more vulnerable to corruption.

 

[nehalem256]

And who the fuck are you do decide what should and shouldn't be considered in "allowing" someone to vote? The Constitution disagrees with your opinion in this matter.

Please point out where in the constitution the right to vote without proving your identity is guaranteed?

 

[gevorg]

So how will the exit polls work? Pop-ups? :hmm:

 

[trenchfoot]

On the face of it, I would think every person who is in favor of all of those "anti-fraud" voter ID laws that have/are being rushed through exclusively Repub controlled state legislatures would be totally against an idea like this. If their stated intent is to prevent voter fraud and such fraud has already been proven to be negligible at its worst, then why would any person, who IMO would seem to be absolutely paranoid to favor voter ID laws, want to invite an even worse threat of possible fraud that on-line voting would bring?

Given that disenfranchisement and suppression of voters who tend to vote Dem is a direct consequence of such voter ID laws, it seems to me the only thing that would be of concern to those voter ID law proponents (read - "Repubs") would be if this on-line voting idea further disenfranchises and suppresses Dem leaning voters.

Convenience-wise, heck yeah, I'd love to vote on-line, but there's only one way a law like this is going to pass, and that's if it somehow improves the chances of Repubs winning elections.

 

[soulcougher73]

Old rickety white people dont know how to use the internet. GOP will never go for this type of gerrymandering

 

[First]

I'm sure there will be those who will oppose this as they would have to prove who they are in order to get a voter verification number/special password which would be no different than showing an ID to vote.

Huh? The proposal isn't for the Internet to become the exclusive provider of voting. People will still be able to vote without ID at voting booths/fire stations/etc. Both.

 

[alzan]

Wut? If you can't prove your identification, you don't get to vote. Why the hatred? There are plenty of things you can't do if you can't prove your identity.

Who the F are you to say thay just any ol'e person can vote without I.D.? Can any ol'e person open a checking account without I.D.? Can any ol'e person buy airline tickets without I.D.? Of course they can't. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with safety and security. And as far as voting goes, it has to do with making sure there is no fraud.

WTF is the big deal anyway? Anyone can get a government I.D. card. Even if you don't have a Drivers License. Get over yourself man. No one is asking for a blood sample, urine analysis, or DNA screening. It's a friggin I.D. card. If the people trying to vote can't even show that, then I don't want them voting. They probably aren't contributing to society at that point anyway.

Gheesh...

Voting is not opening/using a checking account, nor is it buying an airline ticket.

Not all (any?) state photo ID's are free; in my state, Missouri, photo ID's are $11. Not a huge sum but for someone on fixed or below poverty level income it can be a significant amount. Add in the facts of getting to the office that issues them can be a burden.

 

[TheSiege]

What are these "burdens" that I keep hearing about? How f'ing hard is it to show an I.D. at the polling stations when asked? If you can't be bothered to do that, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The only way to solve this is to make IDs free of charge. The issue is that it costs money for an ID and if an ID is required to vote, ergo, by the transitive property, it cost money to vote.

Which is a burden to a lot of people. And even if its not a burden its unconstitutional.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Or we could tattoo barcodes/QR codes on the forehead of all registered voters.

 

[Jaskalas]

Lack of physical ballot is a concern.

One way or another, either the ballots are illusionary numbers attached to nothing, or they have a way to trace back and ID you - along with exactly how you voted