Published: Monday, Aug. 4 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
There will always be some "fraud" in voting. The question is "How
much is acceptable"?The answer SHOULD BE "an insignificant
amount".Which is pretty much what we have had for years and years.
(yes, you can find exceptions)We cannot forgo internet voting
because it wont be 100% secure.And we should not change election laws in
an effort to stop more valid votes than fraudulent ones.Politicians
should not be in charge of election laws (or district lines). They cannot be
trusted to put the good of the people ahead of themselves or their party. They
show us that daily.
So online voting is dangerous?Yet machines manufactured by a
conservative lobbyist and spread throughout the east that still make you vote
George W Bush even though you select John Kerry is fine?
This liberal voting plan is the worst possible scenario. Giving unsecured access
to masses of uneducated and uninformed voters is a recipe for disaster. We must
abolish the 17th Amendment, and then follow with similar measures on the State
level, with utmost security. That is the real answer here.
"This liberal voting plan"This plan came from the Reddest of
the Red states. Maybe, just maybe, you are completely out of touch with the
Unions, under the threat of violence, forced workers to turn their ballots over
to the union bosses who would then turn them in to certify the union. The
courts dumped that idea. I see this as a risk with both online and mail-in
ballots. Mail-in ballots should be eliminated except for the homebound and in
such cases, 2 people from the elections office should be sent out to the
homebound to give them their ballot and help them, if needed, in filling it out.
This would prevent caregivers from filling out the home bound person's
ballot themselves and sending it in.If we are to have online voting,
the government should require the voter to answer a number of security questions
to prevent people from selling their voting access codes to the highest bidder
or to prevent pressure groups from demanding the codes from their members
(unions, churches, corporations, etc...)The online activisit group
Anonymous has been able to hack into government computers. They or other groups
(other governments?) are likely to do the same. Online voting is way too risky.
The integrity of the vote is too important.
I grew up and lived in Utah until my late 20s. Now, almost 30 years later, I
live in Oregon where there is mail-in voting. I caution you: do not switch to
mail-in or online voting.I know that mail-in voting is ripe with
multiple and easy opportunities for fraud. I think it is terrible. Online voting
would probably be even worse. Don't do it. If someone doesn't have the
energy to go to the polls or get an absentee ballot before hand, he or she
doesn't deserve to vote.
"...This liberal voting plan is the worst possible scenario. Giving
unsecured access to masses of uneducated and uninformed voters is a recipe for
disaster. We must abolish the 17th Amendment, and then follow with similar
measures on the State level, with utmost security. That is the real answer
here...".Reminiscent of the meme Hitler used to gain control of
The Nazis came to power through a combination of mass voting by uninformed
voters together with voter fraud. Why on earth would anyone want that senario
@John Charity SmithIt seems to me that the set of people you
classify as the "uneducated and uninformed voters" is identical with the
set of people who vote differently than you.Your ideas to restrict
the right to vote, and to eliminate the direct election of Senators are
undemocratic in the extreme. What's next, going back to the days when the
right to vote was restricted to white, property-owning males?
It's hard to preach security when you can already absentee and mail in your
ballot.No ID, no verification. My 7 year old could have voted and
mailed in the ballot.The only time I need ID is when I decide to go
to the polls. Inconsitency at it's worst.========================@FreedomFighter41Yet machines
manufactured by a conservative lobbyist and spread throughout the east that
still make you vote George W Bush even though you select John Kerry is fine?===============================Dick Cheney knew who you meant to
vote for and was correcting your mistake ;) Besides as he predicted, if we
elected a democrat, we would have faced serious threats to our well being as a
nation.Good thing we got four more years of them.
With the number of hackings of financial info from retail entities, financial
entities, and even the Utah's Department of Health, how can anyone trust an
online voting system. Mail ends have their merit, but as 'Elwood P.
Suggins' comment above, it has its flaws. The concept of requiring
government picture ID, which has been sanctioned by SCOTUS, helps to reduce
fraud, but, unfortunately, fraud in voting has been, and will continue, to have
errors, errors big enough to change the results of an election. But from my
point of view, going to the poll, and showing you government ID is still the
best option we have. I vote early, which is part of the voting system works.
After, early voting gives you lots of time to vote, it doesn't all have to
happen on one day.
We can't even trust the computer vote tabulators which resulted in the 2004
Ohio election being stolen, according to avowed Republican and cybersecurity
expert, Stephen Spoonamore. Spoonamore believes every election should rely on
paper ballots. Faith in our democracy is low, computer voting will
further erode it and increase the opportunity for fraud.
I thought it was "Racist" to expect anybody to identify themselves
before voting...With no reliable way to identify who is voting...
unidentified electronic voting will be RIFE with fraud.You will have
basic fraud (someone voting for someone they know they aren't). And more
innocent fraud, (someone voting for someone in their family or their
neighborhood who trusts them to vote for them because they don't even know
who is running and what the issues are).And changing large blocks of
votes electronically is easier. Electronically it's as easy to change a
million votes (in a nano-second) as it is to change one old fashioned vote.Fraud happens, there's no doubt of that. It absolutely happens in
EVERY election (people running elections know that). Making voting anonymous
and electronic... just makes fraud easier and enables people who would do it, to
do it with less risk and on much larger scale than before.
UPDATE voter_tableSET president="Barack Obama",WHERE
state="Utah";>Run15 seconds to write, less
than a second to run, 2 million votes changed in less than a second. No way to
know what the voter's actual intent was (no chads etc) unless we have a
backup to compare it to, but knowing Government IT systems... they don't
have one. Just like they don't have a backup of the Congressional emails
subpoenaed to investigate the IRS scandal recently.Any country, any
overzealous party partisan, any malicious hacker, who can hack in could run this
query in less than a second...
Online voting is a really bad idea, and will be open to risk of serious voter
fraud. Don't do it.
Take a moment and remember Bruce Funk, Country Clerk for Emery county. In
December of 2005 Bruce questioned the validity of the Diebold voting machines
and had them inspected by an independent company. The Diebold machines had a
built in lock out system to keep them from being investigated. The machines were
also found to be defective in voting (no matter how you voted the programed
machine would register the preprogramed vote, George W. Bush). Diebold accused
Bruce of violating the machines and the Utah election committee agreed. In Utah, state laws were enacted effective June 1, 2006, making it a
felony toinvestigate a voting machine, its software, or the tabulation
software and “other” asdeemed private.Bruce was
locked out of his office, of 23 years, and became an outcast in his community
for doing the right thing.
@2 bits, I have to wonder if you was as concerned with GWBush won both of his
very close elections?
I am a computer scientist and I have grave concerns about any kind of computer
balloting. I know only too well how computers can be manipulated. I favor a
return to individual paper ballots, hand counted with multiple witnesses.
Anything less does not assure the integrity of the vote. People are already
cynical. Let's not give them more reasons to be.
@2 bits"UPDATE voter_tableSET president="Barack
Obama",WHERE state="Utah";>Run"Although your post has given me a good laugh today and I know there are
many people who see computer programming as literally this simple, the truth is
that if the DBA set the table to not allow record updates then the above
programming would fail and the original votes could not be changed.
If online voting and voting machines are to be used, the software loaded into
them ought to be Open Source and freely available to the public to inspect.
This transparency is very much needed when our most sacred right in a democracy
us exercised.Each and every machine should be inspectable by any
voter on election day. They need to be able to have confidence that those for
whom they vote are actually being tallied correctly. If this cannot be done,
then paper ballots should be used, and their counting be open to the public.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments