Discussion
It's that time again to have a moan about our archaic prehistoric voting system.
So why can't we vote online, via an app, like we can do to do our self assessment, pay taxes, and online banking? We can still have some polling stations open for the biddies that can't use technology, but the majority of us could do it online.
Is it a case of more young people voting if it was all online? I don't buy the "there will be more fraud" argument.
So why can't we vote online, via an app, like we can do to do our self assessment, pay taxes, and online banking? We can still have some polling stations open for the biddies that can't use technology, but the majority of us could do it online.
Is it a case of more young people voting if it was all online? I don't buy the "there will be more fraud" argument.
Matthen said:
Because it would be easier for a hostile state to access and manipulate?
Some things are best kept offline.
This is one of them.
This. It would be very hard to have it open enough that people can access it easily and keep the bad people out. It would also be the No1 target for bad people in other countries. Hundreds of government backed hackers trying to find a way to manipulate it.Some things are best kept offline.
This is one of them.
Absolutely not.
Even if it isn't the Russians, someone who loses can say they only lost because of the Russians or the other party hacking or something. It's much harder to do that in our system where my ballot paper gets counted and the total number of votes are matched up to the total number of ballots and everyone can track what happens to my ballot.
The system we have in terms of organising the ballots themselves is very robust to internal and external threats, let's keep it.
Even if it isn't the Russians, someone who loses can say they only lost because of the Russians or the other party hacking or something. It's much harder to do that in our system where my ballot paper gets counted and the total number of votes are matched up to the total number of ballots and everyone can track what happens to my ballot.
The system we have in terms of organising the ballots themselves is very robust to internal and external threats, let's keep it.
I'm not buying the "fraud", or "open to abuse" arguments. Not in 2024 anyway..
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
It's easy enough to get a postal vote but even that simple method is open to manipulation so an online system would definitely fail. In terms of failsafe, what happens when wifi is interrupted or the software crashes, back to the polling stations? Might as well stick with them.
I was able to vote online for the recent UNISON elections, so some progress is being made but it didn't strike me as secure in any way.
I was able to vote online for the recent UNISON elections, so some progress is being made but it didn't strike me as secure in any way.
the answer is of course a blend of voting options, from ballot box, to postal to online or via an app.
It is eminently possible to make the voting secure, and if there is a cyber attack or a drop in wifi signal, then only the postal votes would count.
This might mean that more people can or will vote, and is likely to mean that in the event of a cyber attack, the winner of the constituency might change if you have to resort to only polling card votes
the only questionable thing is if by using you HRMC login for example the government can see how you voted and may then spam you as for why. Having said that, having that kind of opportunity to feedback could help shape policy.
eg. why didn't you vote for us, answer because i didn't like such and such policy.
It is eminently possible to make the voting secure, and if there is a cyber attack or a drop in wifi signal, then only the postal votes would count.
This might mean that more people can or will vote, and is likely to mean that in the event of a cyber attack, the winner of the constituency might change if you have to resort to only polling card votes
the only questionable thing is if by using you HRMC login for example the government can see how you voted and may then spam you as for why. Having said that, having that kind of opportunity to feedback could help shape policy.
eg. why didn't you vote for us, answer because i didn't like such and such policy.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
the only questionable thing is if by using you HRMC login for example the government can see how you voted and may then spam you as for why. Having said that, having that kind of opportunity to feedback could help shape policy..
This is a good point actually, and one that could have merits (annonymity of voting) rather than not having it for technical issues.s1962a said:
I'm not buying the "fraud", or "open to abuse" arguments. Not in 2024 anyway..
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
You can open a bank account online, no reason this wouldn't work.The issue is that it would make it more likely the young would vote and look who's been in charge since before it was a viable option...
Hardly - if your bank account gets hacked, you can revert it. If your tax account is hacked, you can fix it. If everyone's is hacked, HMRC restore a cold backup.
If a general election result is changed: a: how would you know? Assuming you were aware of malicious behaviour, how would you convince the "winner" that they hadn't really won? Suppose it comes to light years later: What are you going to do after the PM is sworn in and their policies have been enacted? Kick them out again and revert the changes they've made?
These systems are secure in some sense, but they have very little value for a foreign state - controlling who our PM is on the other hand : much more valuable, definitely worth the investment/using that 0 day they discovered.
Thinking anything online, especially something that 70 million people need to be able to access, is secure is frankly ridiculous.
If a general election result is changed: a: how would you know? Assuming you were aware of malicious behaviour, how would you convince the "winner" that they hadn't really won? Suppose it comes to light years later: What are you going to do after the PM is sworn in and their policies have been enacted? Kick them out again and revert the changes they've made?
These systems are secure in some sense, but they have very little value for a foreign state - controlling who our PM is on the other hand : much more valuable, definitely worth the investment/using that 0 day they discovered.
Thinking anything online, especially something that 70 million people need to be able to access, is secure is frankly ridiculous.
Bill said:
s1962a said:
I'm not buying the "fraud", or "open to abuse" arguments. Not in 2024 anyway..
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
We have the following all online
HMRC
NHS
Online Banking
Online Trading
Why aren't they an issue? Hackers are trying to target them all the time. HMRC are the best example, and probably the closest system to being able to vote - having a "government ID" etc.
I think it's not going online as it'll open voting up to a lot more people than vote already, and more and more younger people might vote. I'm advocating for online voting in addition to postal voting and voting in person.
You can open a bank account online, no reason this wouldn't work.The issue is that it would make it more likely the young would vote and look who's been in charge since before it was a viable option...
s1962a said:
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
the only questionable thing is if by using you HRMC login for example the government can see how you voted and may then spam you as for why. Having said that, having that kind of opportunity to feedback could help shape policy..
This is a good point actually, and one that could have merits (annonymity of voting) rather than not having it for technical issues.Roofless Toothless said:
The ‘government’ can see how you voted at a polling station if they want to under the present system.
Only if they could persuade a judge to allow the papers to be checked against the polling record, and were prepared to expend a lot of time and money to do so. They would also need a very good reason.Newc said:
Nope, for all the reasons above. And postal voting for convenience reasons should also be scrapped.
But electronic voting at the polling station? Definitely. Go in, vote, get two receipts, one to keep and one to drop in an audit box.
Polls close 22:00. All results announced 22:01.
I agree with this.But electronic voting at the polling station? Definitely. Go in, vote, get two receipts, one to keep and one to drop in an audit box.
Polls close 22:00. All results announced 22:01.
Postal voting needs to be available for only a tiny portion of the population who cannot physically get to a polling station.
Mr Penguin said:
XCP said:
Only if they could persuade a judge to allow the papers to be checked against the polling record, and were prepared to expend a lot of time and money to do so. They would also need a very good reason.
No doubt MI5 have a rummage around to add to some people's files.
Having just encountered touching if tactical faith in officialdumb in another thread, the latest version from XCP is equally comforting
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff