to wonder why we can't have electronic voting?

[ElizabethG81]

I mean, how hard would it be in 2015 to have an electronic system at the polling booths? There'd be no need for counting, re-counting, rushes to declare "first" or all night election coverage. Just close the voting at 10pm, let the computers add up the votes and you're done. Well, you're ready for the bargaining to begin...

I admit I'm a political nerd, but I'm looking forward to staying up all night for the results (to the extent that I've booked tomorrow off work so I can sleep all day). With an electronic system it would all be instant, so a lot of the suspense would be lost. It conjured up the image of the political equivalent of Ant and Dec saying 'Nick Clegg....(long pause)....it's not you........Ed Miliband.......(even longer pause).....it might be you........' and so on. Compared with the current system it just doesn't quite cut it.

Why change it? It's good enough.

I'd love electronic voting, especially if we could do it from home. Maybe get sent a one use pin number instead of a polling card, type it in a website, answer a few questions to confirm identity then you can vote, after you've voted you get logged off and can't use the pin again.

irretating

so how can you prove your vote was counted ? Or anyones ? Suppose the computer says UKIP win ?

lurkinghusband I've not hashed out all the details yet. I'll give you my fully written technical paper when I have.

Ireland has a load of E voting machines gathering dust if anyone is interested .

so how can you prove your vote was counted ? Or anyones ? Suppose the computer says UKIP win ?

There's active research on how to produce verifiable e-voting systems which have some necessary properties. The key one is that it should be possible to verify that your vote was included in the result while also being "receipt-free", which means that you can't get a proof of how you vote (which someone blackmailing you to vote a particular way would be very keen to demand you produced).

The current state of the art is something like vVote:

arxiv.org/abs/1404.6822

which builds on Pret a Voter:

Pret a Voter:

www.pretavoter.com

Fraud, mainly. It expanded pretty rapidly when they loosened the rules on postal voting. It would be even worse with this.

Plus, every hacker in the world would target it (out of malice or glee). Even if they don't totally wreck it, a smaller corruption could invalidate it.

Plus little assurance that a system would cope with massive usage in a limited time.

Plus one gremlin throws whole election into doubt.

Plus difficulties for areas with poor internet access.

Plus disenfranchisement of those not online (it's not actually compulsory).

And governments are generally bad at IT stuff anyhow.

People say fraud, but bearing in mind you can walk in to your local polling station without your polling card or any form of ID, recite your address and get your ballot papers, it seems as if that system is equally open to fraud. Not to mention that maybe they could just fail to count a card or two... Or simply miscount.

Plus, having an online system would be great for people who have to travel at short notice, or end up in hospital and cannot get an original signed doctors note to their local council in time in order to apply for an emergency proxy.

It's 2015. We live in a computerised world. Surely this is possible?

Fraud.If anything we should restrict postal voting to those who really need to and end proxy voting. In the end there's no privacy like the polling booth

this. Postal voting really bothers me - I could have done my mum's vote this time as it was sitting around at her house for days. The odd vote manipulated in this way could be enough to swing a marginal seat. At least there is the sense of a an open process going on at polling stations and no one can stand behind you and force your hand. That's very important if we are to have a political system that people are able to believe in.

Because it is still vanishingly rare for any country in the world to use electronic voting. Estonia is one, and it has been fraught with problems.

Plus the millions it would cost to develop for it to be fully confidential and to make sure the system can't be exploited.

There's nothing wrong with it the way it is, IMHO. If you have difficulty getting to a polling office, that's what postal votes are for.

As a matter of fact acatcalledjohn at a count the total number of papers counted on the table usually differs slightly from the number recorded as issued, and the totals for each candidate does not quite agree with either. Unless it affects the result, the order, or saving a deposit the party agents usually agree to split the difference and let the Returning Office declare the outcome. The discrepancy is single or low-double numbers and does not matter.

But I agree that polling clerks should ask for photo ID.

they don't even require id yet! Think electronic voting is a whilw off.

but bearing in mind you can walk in to your local polling station without your polling card or any form of ID, recite your address and get your ballot papers, it seems as if that system is equally open to fraud

But that's not a mechanism that scales. You need people who are willing to go into the polling station and claim to be someone else, and your scheme collapses if they've either already voted or vote later. The problem with postal, or worse electronic, voting is that you can do it on a large scale without needing a team of confederates. A group of 100 people with very fast cars and flawless operational security could probably vote in person a couple of times each in a few dozen marginal constituencies, which is not a trivial attack; but it would be much easier to do with postal or electronic voting.

But the current system they give you a pencil which can be erased while all other govt forms black ink

But I agree that polling clerks should ask for photo ID.

So disenfranchising people who don't have photo ID, yes? Who are disproportionately likely to be poor, old, young or otherwise disadvantaged? Voter ID laws are a common stunt pulled by Republicans in the US, because they work clearly in favour of more affluent voters.

Being French living in the UK, I have voted online before for some French election (French MPs).
We were isued two passwords for safety purposes (one send my email, the other by post).
I'm not aware of any problems they've had with fraud, hacking etc...

Tbf, postal vote is VERY open to fraud as it is atm anyway...

I quite like the community spirit of going up to the polling station to vote. I would hate to see that go to be honest.

Fraud isn't just within the IT system.

It's someone forcing you to vote in line with their wishes, or using their granny's vote.

And it could destroy the secrecy around your vote, and lead to pressures to vote in a certain way.

So disenfranchising people who don't have photo ID, yes? Who are disproportionately likely to be poor, old, young or otherwise disadvantaged? Voter ID laws are a common stunt pulled by Republicans in the US, because they work clearly in favour of more affluent voters

Yes.

I currently don't have any photo ID, I don't drive and my passport expired. Not in a financial position to get a new one.

I voted today, it would be awful to not be able to because of no photo ID.

I remember that being an issue in the US a few years back and yes it was old/poor people who lost out.

I wouldn't trust online voting.

They tried this in Ireland.
Needless to say, it didn't work out.

No. I like marking that X with a pencil. Some things should be left uncomputerized. It's the same as not being able to read a book on a tablet. I prefer to hold, smell, turn the pages of a book.

OK, forget photo ID - I see where I was wrong.

To keep the paranoids happy replace the pencil with a pen.