The best thing that could happen: Internet voting!

J

Jim March

New member
The sneakiest thing we could possibly do to secure our rights is to pressure research and software for Internet registration and voting.

California is already pondering it. We'll need special ultra-secure software but there's no major technical barrier.

That would be the single biggest change for freedom we can imagine.

Jim March
 
Gray...Jim has an intriguing point, in a sense (with that cautionary).
It could lead to direct vote and subsequent tyranny on majority...

BUT, if reined in later its not bad, it would cut out Establishment media bias and poll results.

Please develop this concept, hash it out....I'm gone for a few days
 
It could lead to direct vote and subsequent tyranny on majority...

DC, could you (when you get back, of course), or anyone else, elaborate on what is meant by this? I, not being the most informed on subjects such as this, am not following...

Thanks.
 
I'm not suggesting absolute direct issue-by-issue voting except using the initiative system as we have now, except that online voting would be possible for candidates and initiatives. Online collection of initiative signatures is a seperate issue, one that will happen AFTER the voting is converted if at all. The signature gathering process weeds out a lot of stupidity, and as long as we have gun shows we'll have the advantage of knowing exactly where to go for sigs.

Here's the main point:

The average "netizen" is far more interested in personal freedom than the average voter. The Libertarian party is FAR more popular online than it is in "meatspace", it's due to a mix of demographics and exposure to a wider variety of viewpoints than somebody who watches the local news.

So if voting by net becomes simple, the average "freedom interest" of voters goes up.

Follow?

Look at how many hardcore RKBA people are public on the net, and speak in forums like this or even have personal websites up, versus "online grabbers". It's WAY up over 20:1 in our favor. If you increase voting among netizens by making it drop-dead simple, it's a MAJOR win for us and one that may change politics forever.

Jim March
 
Jim,
I think I follow your position but...Ive never had a problem voting, it just requires registration and going to do it, and the little matter of following who running.....the demosocialists already have the dead voting for them....with the net they could have who knows who....and probably what concerns me the most on direct issue voting is that the majority definitely rules to the exclusion of anyone else---read that clinton won twice........fubsy.
 
How about a recall amendment to the Constitution? Fit every elected official with a collar filled with a shaped charge and a radio transmitter. If two thirds of his constituency votes by internet to recall him the charge goes off. Not a big enough charge to harm innocent bystanders or interns, of course :)
 
Fusby: Voting is not a problem for YOU because like most here you REALLY give a hoot.

That makes you a minority of even the Netizens, never mind the great unwashed.

As to "votes from beyond" and similar ballot-stuffing cheesiness, the technology would have to be thrashed out in detail. One of the "Big 8" accounting firms would have to sign off on the fundamental security of the situation but don't forget: we already do billions in cash wire transfers between banks without a problem, proving it IS possible.

Jim March
 
Something that I have been thinking about recently concerning the advantages of the internet is related to the media and how it loves to sample bits and pieces from interviews to spin the story to their view and agenda.

What if those running for office taped those interview and posted them, unedited, to their site? Could this not work as a checks and balances for interview reporting? Read it in the paper or hear it on the news, then go check out the real interview on the net, and get the real intent and context.

This could work even for any type of interview. All you would need would be a small tape recorder.

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."

www.countdown9199.com
 
Sounds like a great opportunity for fraud …

I’m not up on this like Jim and some others here so I may be out there ... but off the top of my head it sounds like trouble.

Fraud happens now however it is difficult to repeat it in thousands of locations. With the net … I am assuming that a Govt. server will be collecting the data ??? How do we verify the results? How do we keep dead people from voting ( you know one guy thousands of names )? How do we keep foreign governments from interfering? How do we verify identity ? No way this is big trouble IMO.
 
Scott, it IS technically possible. Security of the level needed is already being applied to the banking system. This is my field, I know whereof I speak.

Any security transaction system tough enough to resist hacking billions of bux floating around between banks or between the Federal Reserve and the banks would be tough enough for voting. TRUST ME, there've been frequent assaults, many of suspected Chinese, Russian Mafia or North Korean origin. The code has survived "trial by fire". PCs are now potent enough to do the RSA-type encryption with a key length long enough to defeat the NSA, as in "up past 256 bits".

Go read up on the subjects of "public key encryption" and "E-Cash" (electronic cash), both of which technologies would be similar to an online voting setup.

You'd need to set up trustworthy oversight but it IS technically possible. The benefits are extreme enough to make the small risks managable.

Jim March
 
I see one potential problem with net.voting...

In order to prevent vote fraud and/or ballot-box stuffing, each vote would have to be tied to the IP from which it was submitted, thereby tying *you* to the vote.

Of course, if the people you didn't vote for got elected, they'd *never* consider compiling enemies lists with this info; That Would Be Wrong.

I'll stick to punching holes in paper, thank you.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim,
<<Fusby: Voting is not a problem for YOU because like most here you REALLY give a hoot.
That makes you a minority of even the Netizens, never mind the great unwashed.>>
...so your saying that the convience of sitting at your pc is going to make a difference, and people are going to get proactive and actually study and learn about their canidates, and not just vote willy nilly from there pc's--I guess what Im getting at is that just because its eaiser dosent mean it will lead to a more concientious voter. I dont mind the concept and it might actually bring more people to vote. I dont know how many more it will make care.
<<<As to "votes from beyond" and similar ballot-stuffing cheesiness, the technology would have to be thrashed out in detail. One of the "Big 8" accounting firms would have to sign off on the fundamental security of the situation but don't forget: we already do billions in cash wire transfers between banks without a problem, proving it IS possible.>>>
.....ARE you implying here that the money transfers from banks have never been hacked?
What about governmental hack's...I believe they have happened, many times.
I believe our government hacks accounts when they want all the time. Have they not transferred large sums from accounts moved overseas and off shore from drug dealers when caught?.....I guess for me the question is can I trust my government to secure the viability of such a system against governmental interference or from outside influence?...I read on a post further down that you want to use encryption, my knowledge on that is dated and dealt with military systems only. I do understand that the long charater strings over 128 are difficult to break and require lots of computer time, and the increase your talking about of 256 must drive nsa nuts unless they have backdoor access then its not all that secure--from casual reading Ive the impression that some members of our government want to propose limits of what individual encryption can have for that exact reason.....I suppose I like the idea of going and casting my vote, it removes it from the everyday habits of checking the msg boards, and elevates it to a status of importance to me.....fubsy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top