# Internet voting? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 12, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249 "2001-05-12T19:26:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/1 "2001-05-12T19:26:56Z")
I don’t see a real problem with on-line voting. Fraud used to be a concern, but incription is so good now that that problem has been greatly diminished… A large number (25% in CA) of votes are cast by absentee ballot anyway, so what’s the difference? What’s your opinion? Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/2 "2001-05-12T21:23:52Z")
I’m against it, because it will make it at least a little bit easier for people who are economically well-off to vote. People who can afford a PC and internet connection in their own home might be over-represented, at least a little. If one group can stagger out of bed in their underwear and vote, and another group has to dress and leave the house and find a polling place, which group do you think is more likely to vote? ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/3 "2001-05-12T21:51:28Z")
> [@](#): > > People who can afford a PC and internet connection in their own home might be over-represented, at least a little. I did give that some thought, **Revtim** , and it’s the only issue I can’t resolve.There is the absentee ballot option, but I don’t know if that balances things or not. It’s been too long since I’ve been poor. I guess my real concern is that, under the present system, a lot of people know who the winners are before they even get a chance to vote. Electronic voting and absentee ballots could go a long way to change that, without offending the First Amendment. Personally, I enjoy the trip to the polls. Peace, mangeprge ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/4 "2001-05-12T22:45:30Z")
**Encryption** proves that the message is secure. It does not (necessarily) prove that the sender is who it purports to be. How are you going to make sure that everyone who wants to vote via the internet is using (and understanding) the appropriate security mechanisms? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/5 "2001-05-12T23:01:44Z")
\>\> People who can afford a PC and internet connection in their own home might be over-represented, at least a little. Let me ask a question. If they were proposing a measure which would make it easier for poor people to vote but would have no effect in the wealthy, would you also oppose it? If you would then you are consistent but if you wouldn’t then why would you be opposed to one which has no effect on the poor but makes it easier for the rich? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/6 "2001-05-12T23:04:44Z")
Mattk, I think it would be relatively simple to mail each person a password and, in that sense, it would be no different than voting by mail. The problem I see is that people would have a harder time trusting the software used to tally the votes as there would be opportunity for fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/7 "2001-05-12T23:06:52Z")
Mailing people a password isn’t secure. Packet sniffers, false websites (as experienced by the BBC recently) and so on are not good signs. How would you mail everyone a password? How would you know (for certain) who they are? For some things, that may be fine (e.g. buying CDs). But would you really want to rely on minimal security for a national election? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/8 "2001-05-12T23:19:50Z")
I don’t know, how do people vote by mail? I believe in Oregon you can _only_ vote by mail. If I can use my credit card online securely I think it should be safe enough to vote. They send me my credit card and PIN by mail and it seems to work. I think there would by much more interest in stealing my credit card than my vote. Once you have a password, encryption makes the communication secure. In that sense it should be safer than using the USPS where the vote could easily be manipulated or made to disappear. I cannot see the problem. I access my bank accounts every day through the net. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/9 "2001-05-12T23:23:28Z")
I’m not saying it _couldn’t_ be secure. But security in the first instance would require encryption ability on both sides – how do you ensure that consistently across all voters? How do you know who you’re sending that password to? Besides, encryption is only temporarily secure. 40-bit security is not that secure these days (I will look up a chart I have that shows the approximate length of time required to decrypt certain strengths of security), yet it’s still widely used for eCommerce sites. I would be very, very wary of setting up voters to vote electronically – if that initial process was guaranteed secure, I would be a lot happier about it. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/10 "2001-05-13T00:11:22Z")
mattk, I think we are talking different _mails_. I am talking about the USPS. Snail mail voters a password they can use to vote online. If I can handle accounts with thousands of dollars online and that is safe I think it should be safe for a vote. The encryption is handled automatically and transparently by the browser’s SSL. A password whould be enough to guarantee the voter is who he says he is. If you do not trust the USPS then you have to scrap the whole vote by mail thing. If you are afraid of the USPS, then you can get your password when you renew your driver’s license or whatever. I see no problem with voting online. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/11 "2001-05-13T00:44:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* \>\> People who can afford a PC and internet connection in their own home might be over-represented, at least a little. > > Let me ask a question. If they were proposing a measure which would make it easier for poor people to vote but would have no effect in the wealthy, would you also oppose it? > \*\* I would be opposed to anything that makes it easier for one segment of the population to vote than other segments, whether that segmentation is based on wealth, race, sex, or whatever. Of course, no method is perfect, so I don’t expect every person to have exactly equally easy access to the polls. But that aspect shouldn’t be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/12 "2001-05-13T03:09:07Z")
\>\> I would be opposed to anything that makes it easier for one segment of the population to vote than other segments, whether that segmentation is based on wealth, race, sex, or whatever. Well, I know the democrats have been pushing and implementing programs designed specifically to get the poorer people to vote. In Virginia and other states the registration when you get your driver’s license was implemented specifically with this purpose. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/13 "2001-05-13T03:31:59Z")
**sailor,** I’ve got to ask. Do you prefer that it be harder for the poor to vote than for those who are not poor? Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/14 "2001-05-13T03:47:55Z")
mangeorge, what I think is not the point and doesn’'t really matter. What I do not find logical or reasonable is when somebody proposes something which would make it easier for some to vote rather than judge it on its merits, analyse if it will hlep the poor vote (then it is good) or the rich (then it is bad). I just cannot accept that logic. So, internet voting is bad because those with computers (you hardly have to be rich to have a computer) get a better chance to vote. I do not agree. Everybody has the same chance to go out and vote and this is just one more way. No one is being denied the right to vote. It is merely being extended and even those who do not have computers can go to the public library if they wish. But it is acceptable to oppose anything which may favor those who are better off. Now, imagine a different scenario. Imagine a measure is being considered, like prohibiting parking near the polls, which has been determined would discourage those who own cars. Would it be opposed on the grounds that it disfavors a specific segment of the population? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/15 "2001-05-13T04:35:43Z")
But internet voting would greatly favor those who can afford a computer and access. And it would probably increase the turnout of these people, which _would_ be a disadvantage to poorer people. Simply put, lazy \*rich people would be more likely to vote than lazy \*poor people. - “Rich” = people with internet access. “Poor” = people without internet access. Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/16 "2001-05-13T04:43:25Z")
you are making my point. Measures which favor lazy poor people over lazy rich people are acceptable while the reverse is not true. I guess I just don’t share the “let’s screw the rich” mentality. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/17 "2001-05-13T05:38:50Z")
What measures favor lazy poor people? This?; > [@](#): > > Well, I know the democrats have been pushing and implementing programs designed specifically to get the poorer people to vote. Republicans (or anyone else) are more than welcome to do outreach to the rich. Load 'em on busses, if you wish. And the rich certainly aren’t prevented from registering at the DMV. I don’t know of any voting law which benefits the poor but _excludes_ the rich. Peace, mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/18 "2001-05-13T13:36:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\*mattk, I think we are talking different _mails_. I am talking about the USPS. Snail mail voters a password they can use to vote online. > > If I can handle accounts with thousands of dollars online and that is safe I think it should be safe for a vote. > > The encryption is handled automatically and transparently by the browser’s SSL. A password whould be enough to guarantee the voter is who he says he is. If you do not trust the USPS then you have to scrap the whole vote by mail thing. > > If you are afraid of the USPS, then you can get your password when you renew your driver’s license or whatever. > > I see no problem with voting online. \*\* Fair enough, **sailor**. I think we were indeed talking at cross purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/19 "2001-05-13T14:37:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > \*\* Well, I know the democrats have been pushing and implementing programs designed specifically to get the poorer people to vote. In Virginia and other states the registration when you get your driver’s license was implemented specifically with this purpose. \*\* How does this make it easier only for the poor? Middle and upper class people don’t get driver’s licenses? If anything, this makes it easier for those who are well off enough to have a car. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249/20 "2001-05-13T16:09:42Z")
Security is a big issue. Not only in making sure the voter is who he says he is (even mail can be stolen), but in dozens of other ways. It’d be simple to set up a distributed denial of service attack on the voting website, preventing everyone from voting. It’d be slightly more complex, but certainly possibly for one side or another to hack into the database and make changes (and how could anyone be sure afterwards?). There’s nothing from stopping someone from voting using another person’s ID. Remember, the IDs and passwords will have to be kept on an online database and will be a tempting target. So a hacker gets in, downloads the IDs, and set a program to flood the voting site with these as soon as it opens. Suppose someone shows up at the polls, claims he doesn’t have a computer, and demands to vote. How do you know he hasn’t voted online already? If it says he has, and he claims he never received a letter with an ID and password, should you believe him? Security is just too flimsy for online voting to be the answer and there are just too many problems. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/internet-voting/65249.md?page=2)