Discussion
I think first and foremost there is little demand for it from our Government, who after-all introduced ID requirements as a form of voter suppression. Online voting is going to appeal mostly to younger people.
Secondly, whilst I'm absolutely certain it could be made secure, it would need difficult to be kept so. The system of actually turning up, marking the slip with an X etc is purposely "archaic prehistoric" because it makes it very hard to manipulate, even the closest of close results is usually down to hundreds of votes, how you do cast hundreds of votes whilst ensuring the real people don't turn up and cause a fuss or raise suspicion? This is why we didn't need Voter ID.
Secondly, whilst I'm absolutely certain it could be made secure, it would need difficult to be kept so. The system of actually turning up, marking the slip with an X etc is purposely "archaic prehistoric" because it makes it very hard to manipulate, even the closest of close results is usually down to hundreds of votes, how you do cast hundreds of votes whilst ensuring the real people don't turn up and cause a fuss or raise suspicion? This is why we didn't need Voter ID.
Online voting yes. Online only no.
I think that's the established position of those who would like an online option and I'd agree.
Knowing more about systems design than most but I'm sure a few on here do too it's perfectly possible to design an anonymous system. I'd be wary about taking one off the shelf but other countries manage it successfully. Nothing's unhackable if it's online but there are ways to know you've been hacked and as someone mentioned with a 70 mill potential list of users you're going to know very quickly if it has been hacked unless it's extremely subtle, that wasn't the point they were making but it's the truth.
The UK system is ridiculously archaic. Thursday voting for example.
But the real reason the government doesn't want it is because they're not interested in making it easier for a generation of younger online people voting, if anything the opposite. As mentioned by someone the bigger problem is manipulation of opinions via social media. But look squirrel - online voting has risks.
I think that's the established position of those who would like an online option and I'd agree.
Knowing more about systems design than most but I'm sure a few on here do too it's perfectly possible to design an anonymous system. I'd be wary about taking one off the shelf but other countries manage it successfully. Nothing's unhackable if it's online but there are ways to know you've been hacked and as someone mentioned with a 70 mill potential list of users you're going to know very quickly if it has been hacked unless it's extremely subtle, that wasn't the point they were making but it's the truth.
The UK system is ridiculously archaic. Thursday voting for example.
But the real reason the government doesn't want it is because they're not interested in making it easier for a generation of younger online people voting, if anything the opposite. As mentioned by someone the bigger problem is manipulation of opinions via social media. But look squirrel - online voting has risks.
P-Jay said:
I think first and foremost there is little demand for it from our Government, who after-all introduced ID requirements as a form of voter suppression. Online voting is going to appeal mostly to younger people.
Secondly, whilst I'm absolutely certain it could be made secure, it would need difficult to be kept so. The system of actually turning up, marking the slip with an X etc is purposely "archaic prehistoric" because it makes it very hard to manipulate, even the closest of close results is usually down to hundreds of votes, how you do cast hundreds of votes whilst ensuring the real people don't turn up and cause a fuss or raise suspicion? This is why we didn't need Voter ID.
How do you establish who the 'real' people are without ID?Secondly, whilst I'm absolutely certain it could be made secure, it would need difficult to be kept so. The system of actually turning up, marking the slip with an X etc is purposely "archaic prehistoric" because it makes it very hard to manipulate, even the closest of close results is usually down to hundreds of votes, how you do cast hundreds of votes whilst ensuring the real people don't turn up and cause a fuss or raise suspicion? This is why we didn't need Voter ID.
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.
Yep... And how often do we assoisate words like "failed" and "horrific" with "government IT project". Some things are best kept offline.
This is one of them.
Simplicity is a good thing, no need to overcomplicate an already complex process.
captain_cynic said:
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.
Yep... And how often do we assoisate words like "failed" and "horrific" with "government IT project". Some things are best kept offline.
This is one of them.
Simplicity is a good thing, no need to overcomplicate an already complex process.
272BHP said:
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is that the voting booth gives an individual the opportunity to vote without outside influence - just you, the voting slip and the ballot box.
Neither online voting or postal voting gives that level of control.
Forgive me but that's sentimental nonsense.Neither online voting or postal voting gives that level of control.
An online vote will give one much more independence.
I've walked through polling stations with parties of every hue throwing their brochures at me. I've lived in NI where some of them were borderline thugs in some cases, or not even borderline. I'm up for a bit of a row (sorry debate) outside the polling station but I don't think anybody should be subjected to that. If online voting allows some who'd not want that hassle to vote it's a good thing.
The technical excuses are not real. Those problems are solvable and have been.
It's a political problem, one party doesn't want more people voting, not a technical one. It has heel lickers looking for excuses in some cases. Not suggesting you're one but seriously don't make your point by saying no other options give that level of control.
Roofless Toothless said:
If you walked in to a polling station and were told somebody had already voted in your name, and you could prove your identity, they are able to find the invalid voting slip by reference to the counterfoil with your poll number on it. You then get another vote.
I do not think they need a judge to do this, but I am ready to be corrected.
Now that ID is a general requirement the rationale for serial numbers is very largely mitigated - and to the extent that concerns about stuffing vs. privacy, which was always a close call, probably now favours privacy. We could do away with serial numbers.I do not think they need a judge to do this, but I am ready to be corrected.
cheesejunkie said:
I've walked through polling stations with parties of every hue throwing their brochures at me.
The returning officer should have sent them packing. Campaigning in the polling station or on its land (e.g. car park ) on polling day is illegal.The very most they can do is ask to check off your name as you enter the polling station, which the parties do so they can remind their members to vote if they haven't already done so.
onomatopoeia said:
cheesejunkie said:
I've walked through polling stations with parties of every hue throwing their brochures at me.
The returning officer should have sent them packing. Campaigning in the polling station or on its land (e.g. car park ) on polling day is illegal.The very most they can do is ask to check off your name as you enter the polling station, which the parties do so they can remind their members to vote if they haven't already done so.
onomatopoeia said:
The returning officer should have sent them packing. Campaigning in the polling station or on its land (e.g. car park ) on polling day is illegal.
The very most they can do is ask to check off your name as you enter the polling station, which the parties do so they can remind their members to vote if they haven't already done so.
You meant Presiding Officer.The very most they can do is ask to check off your name as you enter the polling station, which the parties do so they can remind their members to vote if they haven't already done so.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff