Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

British E-Voting Pilots Announced

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jan 29, 2007 03:44 PM
from the progressive-thinking dept.
Government Politics Technology
rimberg writes "The Department for Constitutional Affairs has announced it is going to trial Electronic voting using the internet and/or telephone. Bridget Prentice, Elections Minister at the department said 'We need to make sure that people can vote in more convenient ways consistent with a modern lifestyle. [...] More and more people, and particularly young people, are using the internet everyday. We need to see if we can use this to encourage people even more to participate in the democratic process.' The Open Rights Group (Think British EFF) have responded by saying 'E-voting threatens the integrity of our elections and we oppose its use in our democracy.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

British E-Voting Pilots Announced 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Increased turnout (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kelz (611260) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:47PM (#17804554)
    I do definitely plan to vote against Labor in the next election.

    ... now if only I didn't live in the US!

    • Re:Increased turnout (Score:4, Interesting)

      by VJ42 (860241) on Monday January 29 2007, @04:03PM (#17804772)
      I live in a Tory\Liberal marginal seat, so a vote for NuLabour[sic] is as much use as a vote for The Monster raving loony party [omrlp.com] Fortunately my political views are no where near those of the Labour party, but the joys of the first past the post system are not lost on me. Instead of this pointless move, why aren't they doing something useful, like introducing the single transferable vote system. That would re-engage more people than this gimmick.
    • I'm in the UK. Fancy doing a vote swap? I'll vote against Labour, and you can vote against the Republicans at your next election :-)

      -Stephen

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by VJ42 (860241)
        It's interesting that both you and the OP are talking about who to vote against. Is the political situation both here in the UK, and over in the States so bad that a vote is no longer a positive statement for a political party? I know I'm having a hard time deciding who to vote for.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Nuskrad (740518)
            Politically, I'm closest to the LibDems, I think. I don't find them particularly inspiring, though. Lembit Opik's recent antics are an embarrassment.

            What exactly is an embarrasment, and furthermore, what does his private life (which isn't even sordid compared to most politicians, for anyone not following the story, he's going out with a not very good Romanian popstar) have to do with his politics, or the politics of the party? This is what is wrong with modern politics, it's all tabloids and spin. It's a
    • So what happens when someone runs DDS attacks against servers in an election?
        • Hahhaahha. Ouch, thank you for correcting. My typo bad. I did mean distributed denial of service. Er, my Engleesh she not so good, here in Nigeria the schools suck. Please send money to me by Western Union, I guarantee terrific election results.

  • really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:48PM (#17804558) Homepage
    British E-Voting Pilots Announced

    I was wondering when they'd let Otto [bgu.ac.il] do something more than just fly the plane.

  • Open, Receipts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mfh (56) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:48PM (#17804566) Journal
    I hope they open up the code so people can see how it works (or fails to work). A paper or electronic receipt system would be crucial, as stated time and time again.
    • Having a paper-trail only works when the voting takes place in polling stations. Voting by SMS or over the Web cannot be secured - but this government is keener on improved turnout than accurate results, as witness the recent expansion in postal voting and the resulting Council of Europe investigation [timesonline.co.uk].
    • A paper or electronic receipt system would be crucial, as stated time and time again.

      A paper or electronic receipt system would open it up to voter intimidation as all of a sudden your vote is no longer anonymous and some guy can say "Show me you voted for X or something bad happens to little Sussie."

  • Internet voting is like nuclear power. There are huge advantages but unless you're really careful there is also the potential for major disasters.

    Eventually, through the use of Internet voting, it will be possible for people to vote on proposed legislation directly. If there's some issue you care deeply about, e.g. a declaration of war, then you can vote directly. If it's not an issue you care deeply about, you can let your elected representative cast a vote on your behalf. Under the current system your ele

    • Eventually, through the use of Internet voting, it will be possible for people to vote on proposed legislation directly. If there's some issue you care deeply about, e.g. a declaration of war, then you can vote directly. If it's not an issue you care deeply about, you can let your elected representative cast a vote on your behalf.

      The founders of the United States intentionally avoided letting people vote directly on legislation in order to avoid mob justice and ensure that the law was formed by those with at least some training in principles of governance. You'd let people vote directly on a war? Remember that the U.S. initiative against Iraq was helped by the confusion in the popular mind that the 9/11 hijackers had significant ties to Iraq. If the public is emotionally stirred up and ignorant enough, all kinds of bad things can happen if you give them the change to go wild. Furthermore, the people would instantly vote away their liberties if they thought it would gain them some security, and they would then turn on that portion of the population which rejected calls for tighter restrictions on whatever matters.

      • Most people are really dumb.

         

      • Yeah ... let 'em have their online vote for everything. Just so long as I control the newspapers, radio and TV. The people, my pawns. That is what an online voting future would look like I fear. Creepy.

      • blockquote>The founders of the United States intentionally avoided letting people vote directly on legislation...

        The founders also avoided letting people vote directly for president which, in retrospect, has created more problems than it solved. As a practical matter, letting people vote directly on legislation was simply not possible when the USA was founded.

        ...in order to avoid mob justice...

        Theoretically, that's what the supreme court is for. In practice, mob justice gets through anyway. It wasn't

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by mibus (26291)

        You'd let people vote directly on a war? Remember that the U.S. initiative against Iraq was helped by the confusion in the popular mind that the 9/11 hijackers had significant ties to Iraq. If the public is emotionally stirred up and ignorant enough, all kinds of bad things can happen if you give them the change to go wild. Furthermore, the people would instantly vote away their liberties if they thought it would gain them some security, and they would then turn on that portion of the population which rejec

    • We don't really get a voice anyway in our two-party (of any power) state. No proportional representation, no referenda on issues (despite being promised them, for, say, the Euro), and a political system that's gamed to work in one way whoever gets into power.

      Let's face it.. we've reached a reasonably happy status quo with the current system and nothing too shocking happens under it. The problems we're having now are little different to those of ten or twenty years ago, and the average Brit has just as littl

  • I bet my EVote goes to /dev/null (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ironically that's also the only candidate worth voting for.

  • Has anyone ever... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by popo (107611) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:52PM (#17804612) Homepage

    Has anyone ever come up with one really good reason why a paper record of all votes is a bad idea?

    • Re:Has anyone ever... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Virak (897071) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:58PM (#17804704) Homepage
      It makes it way too difficult to slowly take over the world, one government at a time. We should welcome our new overlords, not try to make it harder for them.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172)
      Has anyone ever come up with one really good reason why a paper record of all votes is a bad idea?

      It leaves a record on paper.

      KFG

  • Good God, they mean for Parliament elections? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by saskboy (600063) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:54PM (#17804638) Homepage Journal
    e-voting is unsuitable for anything more serious than who people think will supplant Britney Spears as the next queen of teen pop.

    Diebold voting is a fraud, and it happens right in front of the user, on a dedicated machine. The voter can't even see their marked ballot go into a container for verification in the event of computer fraud! It's a sham.
    • e-voting is unsuitable for anything more serious than who people think will supplant Britney Spears as the next queen of teen pop.

      Sounds like it would be a good match for the British Parliment then, which recently spent quite a bit of time debating racism on the BBC's version of Big Brother.
      • If by "quite a bit of time" you mean one question, (IIRC by Keith Vas) and around 30 seconds, at Prime Ministers Question time, then yes they did. There was also an early day motion, but that's outside parliamentary time, and just consists of MPs signing their names, no debate involved. Oh, and Big Brother is on Channel 4, not the BBC.

  • Sounds Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Radon360 (951529) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:54PM (#17804642)

    Now when someone tries to cast a vote from home on their spyware-riddled PC, later to find out it wasn't counted or cast incorrectly, then what? Or worse a whole bunch of voters are disenfranchised and don't even know it because of their clunky equipment.


    Sorry fellas, you have to leave the internet out of this idea for now. Get the bugs worked out of the stand-alone electronic voting machines first.

    • hello and my name is Prince Intembe Kumbobo and I am UK national reside Nigeria and having ran from polotical persucation from new administraton. My associates and me are set up a new party in nigeria To Disloge present administraton. we were and then are in large possession of sums of money and wish to use it to make Differences in uk. I friend, am sure that, you agrees with our plite and fear the Mr Bush and he's chronies.Please to forward to me your voter ID and PWD as well as our banking accounts num

  • Secure voting will be a tough undertaking (Score:5, Funny)

    by MonGuSE (798397) on Monday January 29 2007, @03:55PM (#17804652)
    All I have to say is my 2 million zombie controlled pc's will be voting for myself in the next election.

  • mail? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Vote By Mail has been a huge success here in Oregon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting/ [wikipedia.org]
  • I can't wait until Perl Script wins a seat in Parliament, or perhaps even position as Prime Minister!

  • I can just imagine parliment now (Score:4, Funny)

    by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday January 29 2007, @04:02PM (#17804760) Homepage Journal
    "The hounourable Prime Minister Goatse man of the GNAUK Party wishes to have the floor"

  • Why must it be stupidly convenient? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cliffski (65094) on Monday January 29 2007, @04:02PM (#17804762) Homepage
    "We need to make sure that people can vote in more convenient ways consistent with a modern lifestyle."

    We are trying to make voting as convenient as buying a bag of crisps. why?

    If someone can't be bothered to walk or drive half a mile to a polling station and put a cross in a box, do they really *care* who they are voting for? Far too many people treat voting flippantly (I don't like the look of him, I never vote for a woman, He has horrible hair etc) as it is. Would we be any worse of if voters had to take a simple test before voting? If you can't name the leaders of the main 3 parties, and pick their faces out of a lineup, are you really informed enough about the issues to vote sensibly?

    Politicians in the UK panic about low turnout and think its because voting is hard. Its not, its just that a
    First-Past-The Post [wikipedia.org] system means that most of us have wasted votes, even if the main 2 parties were different, which they aren't.
    Proportional representation [wikipedia.org] FTW.

    Just a thought.
    • I generally agree... although the "picking the faces out of a line up" might not be a great way of giving disabled people (in this case the blind) greater citizenship rights (they already suffer enough hastle from the built environment). I'm not sure that First Past The Post is the problem here thoguh - most people don't care what they system is, those who do will probably never be happy ("YES! we got PR... but they are using the droop quota" *shakes fist* type thing).

      Maybe any test would be hard to adm
    • What if you were able to take your time with voting instead of being rushed through a line/queue with 20 people waiting for you to finish when you finally get to the polling station? Maybe an online version could be done at home, at your leisure and in your own time and it could even provide enough reading material to inform a person who had not previously taken the time to research each candidate or issue.

      • Re:Why must it be stupidly convenient? (Score:4, Informative)

        by VJ42 (860241) on Monday January 29 2007, @05:45PM (#17806082)

        What if you were able to take your time with voting instead of being rushed through a line/queue with 20 people waiting for you to finish when you finally get to the polling station?
        Whereabouts do you live*, and how long do the people near you take to put a cross in a box? I have never ever had to wait more than 10 seconds to vote, and have weeks running up to election day to make up my mind (admittedly last general election I changed my mind at the last minute and spoiled my ballot paper). Usually there is absolutely no one else at the polling station except the clerk and returning officer.

        *If you're not in the UK, we have quite small constituencies and lots of polling stations in each, combined with a low voter turnout. That means no waiting and quick results.

    • Would we be any worse of if voters had to take a simple test before voting?

      We had this in the United States, but it ended up that black people always failed the tests, so we made it illegal because it was racist.

    • I already get out and vote; a more convenient way to vote wouldn't be objectionable to me. I think we can do it.

      In fact, I have a problem with this: 'E-voting threatens the integrity of our elections and we oppose its use in our democracy.'

      E-voting threatens nothing in and of itself. The lack of voting threatens democracies just as much, I think. The problem is that e-voting has been a complete fiasco up until now because it lacks transparency to the people it's meant to serve. Voters should be able to kno
      • Well, isn't the telescreen-based E-voting what they had in 1984 to re-elect the Big Brother? (or was it the telescreen surveilance, I forget)

        Am I the only one seeing the similarity with that and the proposed:

        "The Department for Constitutional Affairs has announced it is going to trial Electronic voting using the internet and/or telephone.

      • There should be independent agencies devoted to inspecting the machines and certifying them.
        Judging by the minimalist description which the DCA gives for the system it will be piloting in Rushmoor, Sheffield, Shrewsbury & Atcham, South Bucks and Swindon, the machines involved will be people's home PCs. Fancy certifying them?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cliffski (65094)
        you must be American :D. there are never queues in the UK that I'm aware of. I've never queued more than 4 seconds to cast a vote my entire life.
  • If you vote from home there is a risk that you might be voting at gunpoint. How do they take care of that?
    • Only rich people with proper home security systems in nice neighborhoods will be allowed to vote.
    • I assume you're also against absentee ballots, then?
      • Except that in your scenario, once you get to the polling station you can vote for whomever you please since the voting is anonymous. In the internet scenario, you are damn sure clicking where the gunman tells you to click.
  • ...... Involve Diebold [wikipedia.org] then I'm all for it.
  • That the poor turnout is because voting is too hard...

    Nothing to do with the fact that the government received only 34% of the votes but obtained 60% of the seats in parliament. No it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the electoral system throws away two thirds of all votes.

     

  • How to vote is not the problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The falling turnout at elections has nothing to do with the technology of how we vote. The problem is the type of people who are foisted on us as our politicians. We have come to expect that politicians never answer a question directly, give misleading answers, resort to ad hominems, and generally give the impression of being thoroughly dishonest and untrustworthy, with the "bonus" of superficial, irritating charm. In the UK there are several shining examples in the upper echelons of political power. They a

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.