So how difficult would it be for a political action group to round up thousands
of people to vote online for a few bucks. No, I think people have to get up off
the couch and go out to vote. Otherwise, they don't care enough anyway,
and could be easily manipulated into voting on line by special interest groups.
I don't yet trust the internet enough to risk our elections to them. One
way or another, when dealing in cyberspace, someone will HACK an election.
Maybe even a foreign government like the Chinese. After all, they managed to
hack a lot of our nuclear technology and other stuff. The internet is not ready
for this kind of responsibility yet.
It doesn't matter anyway.Politicians will SAY whatever they
want to get elected, but the truth is;they are indebted and Slaves
to the $MONEY of the Beast.
I vote permanently absentee. The ballot comes to my house and I vote at least a
week or two before the election. I guess I could let my dog vote for me but he
always goes for the hand that feeds him...just another taker taking us down the
road to ruin. Bits wants a litmus test for real voters. You have to
be committed to count in his book. It would be interesting to see if he voted
for Shurtleff and or Swallow. I'm sure the depth of his study and erudition
told them exactly the kind of folks they were and to stay away from voting for
I'm no luddite, but there's something immensely satisfying about the
ritual of going to the polls, waiting one's turn, and casting a ballot in
the presence of neighbors. It's part of a robust civil religion, and I
would hate to lose that experience to online voting.
Hutterite,There's an age limit... where you're too young to be
expected to actually take time to go vote (unless they can do it on their phone
watching TV they won't bother)??If that's all they care...
maybe I don't want the political landscape to change to accommodate
Americans who are too lazy to vote (unless they can do it on their phone while
watching TV, like voting for American Idle or America's Got Talent)...I mean if voting is too much work if you can't do it on your phone
from the couch or the bar... it's probably too much work to do any research
as well. I don't want our leaders being determined by a group
that's that disengaged, and can't take the time unless they can do it
while watching TV.These are the people who vote for whoever the TV
tells them is cool...
So, we are now trying to make something else easy. Sure, I understand it is
almost beyond us today to make a little sacrifice to take ourselves to any of
the local voting venue. Such drudgery. Ah, it may be that it will
benefit those who vote for a living. I understand now. Makes perfect sense.
If we can get past the fraud and identity problems, this is a great idea. Those
are huge hurdles, of course, but I'm confident we can make it work. This
will enable and empower so many young people who otherwise don't vote that
the political landscape will change because of it.
Why not just let the media companies that sponsor all the media polls that tell
us what we want, and how we would vote IF we could be bothered to take the time
to actually research the candidates and turn out and vote... just let those
media poll takers determine the outcome (instead of just telling us in advance
what the outcome will be IF we bothered to vote)?I mean we trust
polls so much now days... why not let them just tell us what we want??
You think that this will increase voter turnout? It won't. People already
to lazy to get off their duff and vote, won't turn on the computer to do
Can you say voter fraud? I knew you could.Bad Idea. Anyone can get a state issued ID card. With no id, anyone could vote. This
goes through and I'm signing up my dog to vote, as well as my grandkids.Being a Citizen, last time I read the U.S. Constitution, was a
requirement to vote. You are not a citizen, you can't vote. Simple as
that. You want to vote? Become a citizen and get ID.And by the way
Grover, tell that to the lady in Ohio that voted at least 6 times and did jail
time for it.
So Lost says it's a bad idea? Along the way he mentions every buzz phrase
de jour: identity theft, ill informed voters, and of course voter fraud.
Identity theft is a danger in all forms of commerce these days, the internet
just being one. While the risk is real, no one is going to stop the march to do
the majority of commerce via the net. Ill informed voters don't
deserve to disagree with his "informed" vote? Says who? Are you sure
you want to go down the road of the disabled mentioned in the same breath as ill
informed voters.Finally, voter fraud...the greatest red herring of
the age. No longer is it necessary to show even a shred of evidence that it
exists anywhere in the Country and certainly not in enough numbers to influence
the outcome of an election.To my way of thinking, this line of
reasoning is a bad idea.
Given that we can conduct all the rest of our commercial activity over the
internet (including the filing of our taxes), the idea that somehow voting is
different is simply outdated. The security protocols already exist; the only
thing holding us back is our prejudice against technology that we do not
understand.We could wander for 40 years in the wilderness of
backwardness until the older generation dies off and our children who have grown
up surrounded by technology take over from us, but I am hoping that it
won't take that long.
There is no reason to not vote online. Time to move into the modern age.
"The potential benefits of remote electronic voting are tempered by a host
of caveats, largely concerning the security and integrity of Internet-based
systems."=============What a timely topic, especially
considering the recent revelation of the "Heartbleed" Internet security
defect.The fact that such a potentially eviscerating security flaw
could exist for such a long time (some say about 2 years) in the heart of the
very code that is most responsible for securing Internet traffic ought give
everyone cause for a long pause to reflect on not just the idea of voting via
the Internet but doing almost **anything** of a vitally important nature.We continue pile more and more dependence on the Internet. True, with
its roots as a DARPA project, it was designed to be dependable and resilient.
And, in the decades since it was conceived it has certainly proven its worth.
But, like every other useful tool, it can and is used for both good and bad.
And when it comes to the Internet, the integrity of the system must be
maintained **globally**.I dearly hope we give the idea of exposing
our voting process to the Internet ALL the deliberation it deserves.
bad ideatwo wordsidentity theft.bad, bad
idea.If you don't care enough to request an absentee ballot,
you don't care enough to vote.bad, bad, bad idea.just another way to involve the ill-informed, careless person. Just another way to facilitate voter fraud.BAD idea.
This is welcome news, and hopefully this will spread to counter the bogus calls
to restrict voting privileges in other states.Why not use technology
as a means to expand the caucus meetings, as well? One of the reasons people
are suspicious of the caucus system is it seems rigged to jam all the discussion
and dialog into a few hours, which favors those who already have a well
organized agenda, using the caucus system as a means to enact their own narrow
interests. The reason voting rates in Utah have plummeted is a
widespread sense that the system is rigged to favor extremists. If caucus
meetings were held in online discussion forums over the course of a week or so,
allowing people to fully consider positions and offer their own opinions, then I
think you'd see participation and interest pick up, significantly.