Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Government United States Politics

E-Voting Reform In an Out Year? 218

An anonymous reader writes "Most of us know the many problems with electronic voting systems. They are closed source and hackable, some have a default candidate checked, and many are unauditable (doing a recount is equivalent to hitting a browser's refresh button). But these issues only come to our attention around election time. Now is the time to think about open source voting, end-to-end auditable voting systems and open source governance. Not in November of 2012, when it will, once again, be far, far too late to do anything about it." It'll be interesting to see what e-voting oddities start cropping up in the current election cycle; Republican straw polls have already started, and the primaries kick off this winter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E-Voting Reform In an Out Year?

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Yeah, well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2011 @08:05PM (#36562674)

    The problem is that the list of people with the power to do something about it is almost identical to the list of people who benefit from it being corrupt and unauditable.

  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Friday June 24, 2011 @11:06PM (#36564130)

    The ID laws are happening in Republican controlled states. If you spend the time to read the justifications for these laws and the politics of those pushing for them it is clear that the reason for them is voter suppression.

    For example the Texas ID law exempts registered gun owners and senior citizens from the ID requirement. Hmmmm I wonder how these folks tend to vote?

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Saturday June 25, 2011 @03:51AM (#36565630)

    For reasons I do not fully understand, the idea that you should have to show identification to vote has become part of this parcel - perhaps because people think that having to have an ID is a poll tax, perhaps because they think that a disproportionate number of black voters will have white poll workers declare "this picture looks nothing like you".

    Showing ID requires ID. When the state will give you an ID card for free, then it will no longer be a poll tax. Until then, it is a de facto poll tax, even if that poll tax is $20 every 4 years or some other small number.

    I think that having to show ID is a pretty good idea, even if it's not really a major source of fraud.

    Why would it be a good idea if it adds an additional burden and doesn't really address fraud? I've never heard of anyone ever going to vote and finding that someone else has already voted in their place. At best, it's about dead people voting, and that's probably why the ID thing is so important to the Republicans, because I keep hearing that the only reason Democrats win in Chicago is that dead people vote there. It seems our politics is so hung up on the past that it never looks forward.

    There are millions of American citizens without IDs. Most of them poor, and thus presumed Democrat. That's why the Democratic Party is against requiring IDs and Republicans for it. Neither cares one whit about voter fraud, they just want to make it easier for their supporters to vote and harder for their opposition.

  • by tjonnyc999 ( 1423763 ) <tjonnyc AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday June 25, 2011 @06:04AM (#36566314)
    Considering how many states do issue FREE voter ID cards (example: http://www.sos.ga.gov/gaphotoid/FAQ.html [ga.gov]), and how many states have very liberal (in the Locke sense of the word, not the Liberal Party sense) terms of acceptable of non-voter-ID as acceptable proof of identity (anything from driver's licenses to utility bills to welfare cards), all one would need to do is lift a finger, dial a phone number, and get a card.

    10 seconds to Google: "how many states issue free voter ID"... favorite result so far: http://www.johnlocke.org/newsletters/research/2011-02-18-m0lcanosi54bel605me4poau57-regulation-update.html [johnlocke.org] (oh the irony, I reference Locke and Google gives me a johnlocke.org result).

    Here's another example, from New York this time: http://www.vote411.org/bystateresult.php?state=NY [vote411.org]

    ID Needed for Voting

    If you are a new voter who is registering by mail, you will be required to show identification when you go to vote for the first time. If you are already registered at the board of elections or a state agency, you should not have to show identification at the polls. It is advisable for all new voters to bring identification when voting for the first time. Acceptable IDs to to vote are:
    • Passport
    • Government ID card
    • Military ID card
    • Student ID card
    • Public housing ID card
    • Any ID specified by HAVA and New York State law as acceptable
    • Utility bill
    • Bank statement
    • Paycheck
    • Government check (Social Security, tax refund, military paycheck or paycheck stub)
    • Other government documents with your name and address including but not limited to: voter registration card, hunting, fishing, or trapping license or firearm permit.

    So, if you work - your paycheck stub is OK. If you work for cash - your bank statement. If you don't work - government check. If you don't work and are in public housing - housing ID card. If you have a landline phone - your bill. If you don't have a landline phone - cell phone bill with matching address. And so on, and so on. Please, PLEASE show me ONE person who can have any semblance of normal function in society and yet somehow avoid having ANY form of ID.

    If someone doesn't have ANY form of ID (how the HELL do they live? How do they drive / buy cigarettes / alcohol / drugs? How do they avoid being arrested if stopped by a cop? How do they receive welfare or own a home? Who the HELL in today's society doesn't have ANY ID?), and they're too damn lazy to even call up the state and ask for a voter ID card, do we really need to hold their hand all the way to the voting booth? Or can we acknowledge that sacrificing the rights of hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters (whose vote would be canceled by someone else's fraudulent one) for the sake of a tiny percentage of lazy/arrogant jackasses who can't function on the most basic level, is a terrible idea?

    Or do we instead cling to the "screw the rights of millions, protect the rights of the few" doctrine and allow rampant vote fraud to take place?

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...