What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
48 Comments
- WeBeGood, on 11/14/2009, -0/+27Cool, I can check my vote after the election and the ballots can be counted two different ways that better add up. Sure beats the faith based voting system we have now.
- MisterPink, on 11/14/2009, -0/+18I for one am very excited about this news. The last few elections have been dominated with accusations of corruption from both sides parties in the US. If this takes off, and I hope it does, then those accusations may still arise, but we can quickly find out if they're legit or not. It's about time we have a way to look up our actual votes to make sure they got logged correctly.
- AndrewDB, on 11/14/2009, -2/+17McCain didn't win because of several reasons.
One big one in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
Familiarize yourself with her, she's more stupid than George W. Bush, and the American people were ***** tired of Bush. - KevinRowz, on 11/14/2009, -4/+19Now they just need to invent a time machine so that they can send this thing back to 2000.
- disappointed, on 11/14/2009, -0/+10It's all explained here:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/rivest-sidebar
"To change the final tally, a ballot stuffer would have to insert fake votes into table three. But that would entail spuriously flagging the corresponding entry in table two. And that would entail revealing the corresponding code in table one — which a voter who checked her code online would notice."
And if you fully understand that article, you're a better man than I. - pgoetz, on 11/14/2009, -1/+8Like communism, this is one of those ideas that sounds good Prima facie, but is actually a terrible one. The founding fathers would say something like "been there, done that: that's why we invented the concept of a Republic". The average voter is not going to have time to carefully study every issue, hence won't be making informed decisions. And if you think media/corporate spin is bad now, wait until a system like this hits the streets. Can you even imagine the amount of advertising dollars that would be spent lying to the public and trying to trick them into "allocating dollars" against their own best interest? Thanks but no thanks. The current system sucks, but it's a million times better than one that is completely randomized (what you are in essence proposing, given the real life details that would creep into the equation).
- tek69, on 11/14/2009, -1/+6we're certainly not gonna vote for republicant's.
- dsfjvhbd, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5This kind of fraud is rare, because it comes at a great risk for an individual (impersonator) while still yielding only one vote per individual.
- dsfjvhbd, on 11/14/2009, -1/+6A few years ago it was the Republicans, who always try to fix elections.
Fact is we must always pay attention to both sides, but there is no reason to get paranoid.
I have seen evidence of a lot of stupidity from ACORN, but none of an attempt, to fix elections. - roostersheep, on 11/14/2009, -3/+7One day I hope for a computerised system where we can vote on every decision.
- Gidzola31, on 11/14/2009, -0/+4I sure wish we could have all the votes counted. They probably will still find a way to fix elections.
- AmazingA, on 11/14/2009, -0/+4The fact is that we have plenty of technology to do an online vote now (it's secure enough for taxes, bank accounts, etc), but if young and working class people all voted there would be a huge power shift.
BTW, do teabaggers really think Obama won because of ACORN?? It was a blowout people! Too funny. - visionviper, on 11/14/2009, -0/+4If there is anyone who can pull of a great electronic voting system it's probably the guys down at MIT.
- opticwind, on 11/14/2009, -1/+5What's in the public interest is not what the public is always interested in. The fact is we pick officials based on their records and sides as to make smart, informed decisions for us.
The average person, myself included, has no idea of the inner-workings of politics and economics like some politicians do. - AndrewDB, on 11/14/2009, -1/+4The first comment on that has a good point:
Just how does this prevent stuffer from highlighting unused ballots and stuffing these extra votes? - dantenhickville, on 11/14/2009, -0/+3It would solve some of the problems, but it wouldn't stop people from dropping tons of money into races that aren't even in there state. I thought Senators and Representatives were supposed to represent their constituents.
- WeBeGood, on 11/14/2009, -0/+3Dead people voting, or ineligible voters voting is not a problem with the actual "process" of the election. Voting, counting, recounting and verifying votes during an election is what this scheme addresses. Deciding who can and cannot vote and how that is implemented is something else. This voting method addresses reduces fraud in the voting/counting/recounting/verification process, not deciding who can and cannot vote.
Some states have decide that dead people "can" legally vote, if they cast an early ballot and die before election day. - FLUX, on 11/14/2009, -0/+3no computers in voting ( no system is completely secure) keep the votes on paper so there is a record of the vote not a digital record that could be altered as the vote is cast .
- Infowarsdotcom, on 11/14/2009, -0/+3Elections are so 20th century.
- WeBeGood, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2Unused or ballots that were trashed so to speak (voter need another one because something was wrong with the first) can still be counted. Total ballots printed = votes cast + unused ballots. Yes, dead people could still vote the old fashion way. But old fashion ballot stuffing requires a huge conspiracy for large elections, unlike what we have today. It only requires a conspiracy of two people to throw an election, someone who wants a certain person elected and a computer geek in the right place....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell
...may he rest in peace.
Also, it would totally eliminate vote swapping, replacing ballots with different ballots. - pe5t1lence, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2Problem is, the response would be horribly skewed to those without jobs. No one else would have the time to vote on everything.
- paradigmx, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2Then how about a 3rd party?
- gasoline, on 11/14/2009, -1/+2Been there, done that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_ ...
More background:
http://vvk.ee/index.php?id=11509 - whatisthisaol, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Did you read the article? These are optical scan ballots. Doesn't get any more papery than that.
- roostersheep, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1That's exactly why we should get involved, rather than leave the decisions to so few.
- Loomyer, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Computerized voting stinks because its all down to trust in the programmers and technicians who may have sold out. Keep paper trails everyone can understand.
- bbr4nd0n, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1now THIS will change how wahington works.
- dsfjvhbd, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1If you think about it, there is no real way to prevent money from out of state (or even from other countries) to be paid to someone, since any large company has some kind of office inside from where the money can be paid.
- SilverStandard, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1How about instead of voting, we elect Congress through random lottery. I think that would be better than all the morons we have now.
I know it may not work in practice, it's just an idea. - martoq, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Unfortunately this will go the same way as the Compression engine, the hemp engine, the water engine, etc. etc. etc. It will either get bought and shelved or blocked from the political landscape through corporate bribes and manipulation.
- WeBeGood, on 11/14/2009, -3/+4Yeah, with the advent of computerized voting, it only takes a conspiracy of two people to throw an election one way or the other. Someone who wants a certain person elected, and a computer geek in the right place....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Connell - funkywood, on 11/22/2009, -0/+1Precisely why this will never be used.
- moduspwnens, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1This would also send every society to communism pretty quickly. The class warfare waged in the US and outrage at the very mention of "tax cuts for the wealthy" (even though they pay the vast majority of taxes) confirm it. There are a ton more people who aren't rich than who are, so virtually every income-redistributive policy would pass over time, leading to Socialism. Eventually there would not be enough rich people to support the system, which would lead to bankruptcy and Communism.
Of course, that's happening anyway, but it's slowed because we're often given two candidates to choose from and this isn't the only issue we vote upon. - Zalyster, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1Ooh you two must feel clever huh...
- kenahoo, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1Show me the dead people Franken counted. I live in MN and I'm proud that we run elections that people can trust - paper ballots, simple procedures. A cryptographic trapdoor verification process would help make them even better.
- mithrasinvictus, on 11/14/2009, -2/+2So, this allows for people to confirm that their votes were actually recorded.
They state that it can be used with existing optical scanners, so that would mean the revealed confirmation code is not actually recorded. That would still leave the possibility of having the scanning software count a percentage of the votes for candidate A as votes for candidate B, which is exactly how electronic voting fraud works now. - mrsurfboard, on 11/14/2009, -1/+1What could possibly go wrong.
- DulcetTone, on 11/14/2009, -1/+1Well, at least SOMEONE reads my Digg comments. I suggested much the same system 2 weeks ago.
http://digg.com/politics/Man_Denied_the_Right_to_V ... - WeBeGood, on 11/14/2009, -2/+1I agree, everyone could allocate every dollar they pay in taxes. Or, why wait every four years to cast your vote for president, just have a continuous election where you can change your vote daily and it's counted daily. When someone get's more votes that the current elected official, he is now the elected official.
- greenmoonice, on 11/14/2009, -2/+1Perhaps it would make voter fraud more difficult but remember if you can access your vote it also means others can access your vote so you can forget about one of the cornerstones of our republic and this is the secret ballot.
- heavyj1970, on 11/14/2009, -2/+1they recounted the votes and stopped counting after franken was ahead
- miaow, on 11/14/2009, -2/+1interests in elections will keep dwindling until they bring in online voting
- heavyj1970, on 11/14/2009, -4/+1Will it ensure that dead people, and those not eligible can't vote? Maybe they can send this to Minnesota, but I'm sure Al Franken will still find a way to count them until he wins, regardless of the truth.
- KDX200rider, on 11/14/2009, -16/+6The Democrats will never allow something like this to be used. They have worked too hard preparing organizations like ACORN so they can steal elections.
- proverbs17, on 11/14/2009, -15/+2Nobama 2013!
- birbseed, on 11/14/2009, -19/+5The Dems will never allow this.
- headortails, on 11/14/2009, -16/+1ya ya ya... accurate my ass.
- imbob, on 11/14/2009, -18/+2Haven't we learned that it doesn't matter how votes are counted.
Did McCain even come close to winning?
spelling that name gives me goosebumps XD
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is