I don't like the current voting system in this country, and I don't believe that I'm alone. After the 2000 elections, the reason why is a no-brainer. It was a perfect example of what happens with a flawed system when all of the right people are in all the right places and prepared to take advantage of it. We managed to put the worst president in U.S. history in office, and we are still reeling from the outcome.
I can't believe that this was an isolated incident -- things like that don't just "happen." A calamity like that has been brewing, gathering momentum for some time, the difference being that, in the past, there was most likely enough of a spread that the leader won by a wide enough margin that it didn't warrant a second look. Perhaps it has even happened before on such a large scale that the wrong man was seated, and nobody questioned the results.
Scary thought? What is even more frightening is that we have elections coming up soon and not nearly enough has been done to correct this extremely critical problem. There have been several alternatives recommended but so far nothing has panned out. Time to get on the ball?
There's another problem, probably of greater importance than the mechanism for counting votes — voter turnout. Less than 50% eligible of voters cast their vote. Now we have two problems of major proportions looming for elections only two years away, yet nobody seems to care enough to put every effort into developing the most obvious, most promising solution for both of these situations, a system which is already available and in use throughout the country.
I believe that the process of the future will involve the PC or home computer which would be the most reliable and simple form of taking part in a system in which all eligible persons should be involved, allowing a voter to make more informed choices without the pressure of time or unfamiliarity with the voting machinery that you find in the current system.
Article comments
1 - Warren Smith
One way to improve our "voting system" and
increase turnout is "range voting".
We'd appreciate your endorsement (click "ENDORSE")
2 - JP
Thank you for posting this. People are far too complacent about this issue.
3 - Diz
I'm sorry to say, from the perspective of a networking, systems administration, and security professional, that a system like this will never fly. I too believe that such a system would dramatically increase voter turnout and hypothetically ensure the true winner of elections.
The reality with such a system is that there will ALWAYS be people out there with the ability to hijack it and completely skew the results in any way they want.
"Home computer voting is a matter of developing the software, programming every possible safety device, and vigorously testing every angle for flaws. Once this has been accomplished, it's removed from human hands, the most flawed system there is, and becomes its own entity, securing itself, and walking a straight line to accomplish its charge."
If only it were as cut and dry as this...the problem with a system such as this is that it relies on the internet for communication which immediately means that there is no way to remove it from human hands. Just as the developers have finished vigorously testing the system for flaws, hackers have developed a new way to penetrate it that developers have never seen before.
This is the reality with all networked systems. You too easily dismiss the fact that world banking and federal systems have been broken into in the past and could be at any time in the future because of the plethora of networking and computer experts (hackers) throughout our society. Fortunately, an overwhelming percentage of these people are intelligent enough to stay out of such criminal activities and actually tend to assist in keeping evil-doers at bay. However, you can't deny the fact that there still remain a select few who would love the opportunity to cause widespread mischief.
The other variable you have overlooked is the reliability of the internet. It is incredibly easy to cut people off from the internet, its as simple as cutting a wire or crippling personal systems with viruses rendering them useless. The same goes for cutting off vast amounts of people at the same time.
The best way to increase voter turnout is to make it cool. The older generations in this country were fortunate enough to be taught the importance of voting. However, they failed to pass this knowledge down to the kids who have been coming out of high school and college for the past decade or so. Today's youth only cares about what is "cool" and unfortunately voting doesn't make the cut. Its scary to think of what voter turn out will be in twenty or more years from now.
As far as preventing voter fraud or corruption the only thing I can say is that a network-based approach absolutely will not work.
4 - DrPat
The great unexpressed assumption in all such voting-system proposals is that people choose not to vote because the voting booth is inaccessible or inconvenient to them.
Absentee balloting addresses the problem of inaccessibility, removing the bar to the booth for those who cannot physically come to a voting booth and for those whose work hours or location prevent them from voting during the standard polling hours.
The rest of the bar to voting is internal to the voter; these are people who cannot be bothered to register, who cannot be bothered to inform themselves on the issues, and for whom voting is slightly more painful than a visit to the dentist.
Making this vital civic duty into a video game is not likely to change this. To paraphrase, "It's the apathy, stupid!"
5 - Nancy
Additionally, I do believe it is in the interests of the incumbent party, whichever it is, for the minimum number of voters to turn out; this greatly increases their chances of winning, if only by default. An energized voter population is very bad news for most politicians, as it means people en masse are incensed or excited or upset about something, and what's more, even if a politician wins, s/he will then have to do something to address whatever issues the voters mobilized on - usually issues which are not aligned with the personal priorities of the candidate because they involve actually taking a stand & doing something substantial, which all politicians are allergic to. Frankly, I think if they could get away with it, incumbents would dearly love to simply not have elections at all, just continue w/things as they are.
6 - Diz
Yeah, we also definately don't want to give people who are too lazy for the current system an easier way to vote. There are too many people who don't know the issues and have been brainwashed into feeling one way or the other as it is. If anything it should be harder to vote.
7 - Diz
You should have to pass a test based on the facts of all current political issues in order to cast your vote...
8 - Diz
ok i take that back...how unamerican of me to say that
9 - Peter J
I agree with almost all of your responses, especially yours Nancy.
I didn't address this because I wanted to keep the article as non-partison as I could, being that there are always people who have to drag their politics into every issue making the issue secondary to their histrionics.
Diz, you too have a valid point. What a perfect world if we tested people to weed out ignorant, lazy people from voting, being parents, etc.
Not PC, Diz.
JP, I don't believe people who don't vote give a good shit, until their choice loses. It seems people only get concerned when they have something negative to say about something they had the power to change but didn't. If it doesn't include 'shouting down' the opposition, why bother. Everybody's too glued to the rantings of a drunken has-been movie star than something of real importance. Why vote?
Finally, Diz, in #3. I've heard all of the reasons why not a million times but no one can tell me why this totally flawed system is good enough for the SS administration, World banking, the CIA, FBI,etc.
I'm sure we would have heard if someone succesfully plugged in and moved 10 million dollars into a bogus account, monitered the movements of top government agencies, Wiped out all of the IRS files, or any one of a hundred ways to benefit from tapping the system, but I don't remember ever hearing about it.
Remember, we're not talking about your little E-mail,IM, game playing, home toy. This is a highly technical, foolproof system that will cost initially billions of dollars, but if we could donate $100,000,000,000. to Halliburton, well we should be able to scrape up a couple of billion to save our nation's voting system.
So, my question still remains, If it's good enough for the government, banking, and highly secretive govt. agencies , then why not?
I'm not trying to be negative, I only want to hear that one question answered.
This is the equivelent of why electricity will never get off the ground, too many wires, someone could turn off the country, too dangerous.
If everyone paid mind to negative issues about the telephone, flying, electricity, and man walking on the moon we would still be in the dark, walking, and shouting. By the way,
***The big question , again. Read slowly!****
**Easy question; if it's good enough for the government, banks, personal security, etc., then why not voting. Don't tell me why it won't work, tell me why it is working already!**
10 - Peter J
I did check out the 'Range Voting' from #1, I don't get where it's better. It seems it's just adding a lot more numbers to the game. Why does it matter how much you like or dislike a candidate?
It's like asking 'how dead is he'.
It's either Y or N.
Has anyone else got an opinion on this?
11 - Diz
I understand your question peter but you are clearly overlooking the fact that hackers have and always will be able to get into bank and government systems that costed a lot of money to put in place. It doesn't matter how much money you dump into a system like this there will always be hackers out there who can figure out exactly how it works and discover its flaws. This is because the best known practices for stopping hackers are always developed by hackers themselves. The government will not be able to develop a super secret super bullet proof means of securing such a system without hackers knowing how they did it...it cannot and will not happen.
Go to google and search for 'hacker government' or 'bank hacker' and browse over the results.
Why is it still good enough for banks and the government? I think the answer to your question is the fact that the benefits gained from such systems are seen as outweighing the vulnerabilities. However, there are many more vulnerabilities with a system such as the one that you propose because its something that EVERYONE will use, during the same restricted time frame.
12 - Peter J
Good answer Diz, It still makes me go Hmm, but I do get your point.
Did you get a chance to check out this 'Range Voting' thing? It doesn't seem to accomplish anything except turn the election in to a tv reality show. The "Best American President Show"!
13 - Diz
I'm not sure about range voting. I think the first step in correcting our voting system is to do away with the electoral college.
Range voting's major flaw is the fact that you can't trust everybody to vote honestly in such a system. Certain people will rate each candidate as honestly as they see fit while certain assholes will just bomb every candidate other than the one they want in office. I think you can only provide people with the good old fashion all or nothing vote so they use it honestly.
14 - Diz
If we want to turn elections into a great reality tv show lets just give the candidates each a pair of boxing gloves during the debates and use an unstructured format. Winner takes all.
15 - Peter J
Diz,
I'm like a herpes sore (great analogy,huh?)
I checked out these sites and now I figure how to foolproof the system.
My teachers hated me for this shit! (why? why? why?,,)
As the articles said, each hacker has their own system, many already working to help protect systems rather than knock out.
As discretely as possible hire 1000 hacker/programers to at $100,000. (or whatever) to develop a system which is inpenetrable as is possible. Integrate the systems so that whatever somebody tries to over ride, something is going to bounce it . So as not having hackers who just want to fuck with it and turn it into a game, do it,make it a contest for them. Whoevers system turns out safe gets $200,000. additional. I'm just spurting numbers so these are inconsequential. It's the concept.
Talk to me.
16 - Sinterest
How about a box with a slot in the top and a paper ballot?
17 - Peter J
Sin,
At this point I believe anything is better than what we have.
It's very intimidating for many people who are not politically savvy to step into a booth with a line of people behind you obviously in a hurry and you get hit with this ballot that has names you've never heard of before and propositions 10 pages long and try to make good decisions. I believe that those decisions are so important that there should be a system in place where a person can be at their own home and be able to take their time to investigate and make an informed decision.
Maybe even a 'mail-in' ballot system would work.
It seem everyone is awfully quick to dismiss any idea for a new system. This I can't understand being that our current system is admitedly so flawed.
I just don't get it.
Everyone (who is legal) has a social security card. A person with a state picture ID (every state has one) and a social security card registers (just as is done now) and is given a voter ID card which has a 6 digit pin #.
OK, everyone says computers won't work, everyone is so fucking adament about this it's almost like arguing religion (the Church against Computer Voters) so Mail, The Post Office. Through rain or snow or,,,,. Mail the ballots out 1 week before the election, with easy to follow instructions.
Now, is it ok for people to use computers to discover information on candidates or propositions so that thay may truly partake of the system? No line, no pollsters telling them their in the wrong place, just a simple vote, sign it, seal the envelope,(supply your own spit or the envelopes may be pre-glued) and mail it.
Now, I know, someone could steal the mail, people could counterfeit ballots,,Jesus Christ, can anyone think positively on this issue? Allright,, I'm obviously too stupid to offer a viable system. We threw 150 billion dollars at Iraq, can't we find a billion bucks somewhere to throw together a 'Super Think Tank', you know, like the 'Incredibles'?
SHIT!!!! Why does this, a very ,very simple matter in these days when we have space stations, people whacking golf balls on the moon, reaching levels at the bottom of the ocean and discovering new (to us) forms of life have to be so friggin complicated?
This is such a simple endeavor, why then does the country treat this like we're trying to replicate the immaculate conception?
Oh, wait. I'm sorry, we did already pull that one off!