Voting by Internet, Nyet?

Great Debates
1

Samuel Adams once said, “…it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…”

A couple of weeks ago, John C. Dvorak wrote an opinion piece for PC Magazine, entitled “Voting by Internet, Nyet!”

His essay sparked a miniature firestorm of feedback. His opposition to internet-based voting for political candidates stems mainly from concerns about abuse and corruption (“Hey, buddy, I’ll give you 20 bucks if you let me vote on your account”). But he also make a point, almost a throwaway, about making it easier for the ignorant to vote. He says:

I find this to be a compelling question. If people truly don’t care, they are unlikely to go to a polling place; witness the voter turnout percentages. As a result, in theory at any rate, the people who are voting are the ones who know enough about the issues to care. Now, I know this isn’t the case in practice–abuse and corruption in our political processes are nothing new, and many races are becoming more and more popularity contests and struggles to see who has the shrillest rhetoric.

But making it easier to vote will only make this worse.

There seem to be two major objections to Dvorak’s opinion. Firstly, many people claim that internet voting will NOT encourage more people to vote, that it’s just as easy to go to a polling location as it is to vote online. I think this is wrong. Just looking at the number of people who fell prey to the “love bug” indicates to me that people will click on anything. There is still a belief, especially among newer or less computer-savvy users, that the 'net has no impact on real life. Trolls spew dreck on message boards in a way they they wouldn’t in meatspace, because it’s “not real.” Grown men pose as little girls, kids write viruses, lusers DSA corporate sites, because it’s “not real.”

I contend that if internet voting were implemented, more people would vote, and they would vote on whim rather than substance.

Which leads to the second objection held by the Dvorak detractors. One example:

(bolding mine)

This startled me.

Now, as I read it, Dvorak is in no way claiming that stupid people don’t have a right to vote (as many of the respondents seem to think). Instead, he is wondering if we should encourage voting by those who neither understand nor care about the “issues” beyond a candidate’s sex life or party affiliation. US citizens over the age of 18, who are not felons, have the right to vote. No worries there–internet voting is not an issue of franchise.

But I further contend that with the right to vote comes not a responsibility to vote but a responsibility to place an informed vote. We should not make it even easier than it already is for people to place their votes in ignorance of the issues involved.
-andros-
(waiting in Teflon Underoos)

2

Agreed. This is the reason why I fear referenda on issues such as European integration here in the UK. I don’t want Britain’s economic future decided by tabloid-reading xenophobes who don’t like the smell of the French or the German sense of humour.

3

I have to say that I agree with Dvorak 100% on this issue.

Another objection I have to add in is the propaganda factor. We have laws forbidding candidates or their representatives from proselytizing for converts too near the polling place. The idea behind these laws is that people will supposedly have enough time to think about what a candidate says for a little while before actually casting the vote. But what happens when there’s a site purporting to show mutilated babies, claiming “THIS IS WHAT ABORTION IS!!!”, that also has a convenient link to vote for Pat Robertson? Even if the person knew that they were indeed casting a vote, even if there were no fraud at all involved in the actual voting process, this takes the “cooling off” time that people might use to get their critical thinking gears turning again (big assumption there I guess) from minutes or hours to mere seconds.

4

I totally agree that this is wrong. They are saying it’s as easy to jump into the car, drive to the polling place, and wait it line, as it is to go to a PC and click a few buttons? If they weren’t PC Magazine readers I would say these people are totally computer illiterate. I still suspect it.

If there is Internet voting, I predict that those who are financially well-off enough to purchase computers will be represented more than in the past. Is this bad or good? Hard to say. I suspect that those people will also be more educated, so maybe it’s a good thing. But I’ll still have to be against it, because it lets a segment of the population have easier access to voting than another, based on wealth.

5

If we are all concerned about making it easier for people to vote, why aren’t these people begging for telephone voting. Nearly everyone has a phone, less than half have access to the net. Why do we have this big concern now about how voting is so difficult. Anyway, I agree with Dvorak on this one.

Think about how much easier it would be to bribe or extort someone to vote in a particular way. Theoretically I could create a program that would break someone’s system if they cast a vote a certain way that I don’t like. I could offer money. I could even set up a cookie file to note how you vote. Internet voting is a very ill-concieved idea. (and probably so is telephone voting)

6

Well. Not as hot a topic as I’d expected (and I didn’t expect much).

I’ll give it a bump, then let it sink into oblivion.

And maybe one more try to get an argument going with a purely gratuitous ad hominem:

Anyone who thinks internet voting is a good idea is dumber than a whole box of hair.

(“Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.” -Seymour Skinner)

-andros-

7

You think that is going to get me to fight?

8

I have no strong opinion as to whether we SHOULD allow voting on the Internet, but I must attack the #1 premise behind the idea.

Whenever a movement arises to make it easier to register, and easier to vote, I shrug and ask “Why?” It’s not difficult to register or vote NOW! How did I get registered when I turned 18? I picked up a registration card at my local library, filled out 3 or 4 lines, and mailed it in. Anybody who’s not registered to vote, apparently, find THAT kind of effort too strenuous!

Now, I don’t know precisely what the election laws are in other states, but here in TExas, “absentee” voting has been DRASTICALLY expanded. In fact, ANYONE can cast his/her vote at supermarkets, malls, etc., for several weeks BEFORE Election Day. Mind you, that doesn’t bother me- in fact, I find it very convenient. So convenient that I haven’t voted ON Election Day in years! But…

Has this convenience increased voter turnout? Not a whit! HEre in Austin (a city that fancies itself a hotbed of left-wing activism), elections typically get 9-10% turnout.

So… while I don’t object to efforts to make it easy to register and vote, I can tell you first-hand that people too lazy/stupid/apathetic to vote the old-fashioned way are too lazy/stupid/apathetic to vote even when you make it easier.

9

I think there is an interesting point about - philosophy vs the human reality - of democracy.

Ideally we should have a political and educational system that allows citizens to make up their mind about the issues and decide accordingly.

Several of you have expressed concern at the fact that there are a huge number of people with trivial and superficial values and you have even suggested that the deficiences of the political process when coupled with the almost inevitable idleness of the ignorant has some advantages.

I can think of many reasons why people choose to be ‘ignorant,’ one such is the “it doesn’t matter how you vote the politicians will do what they want anyway” syndrome.
Many people feel this way and have made an active decision not to waste their time and intellectual capacity trying to understand the issues.

I think that the more people are made ignorant and apathetic the more it suits those who do not want to be accountable for their actions.

One problem I find with politics is that some policies of the one party seem like a good idea and other policies of other parties are a good idea too, a sort of mix and match, but because it seems to be tribal no politician can afford to be seen to be obviously hijacking anothers party’s ideas.

The idea that only the computor literate and therefore wealthier individuals would vote ignores the fact that the real power brokers do not bother with voting anyway but instead use other means of influence to get their way, it was ever thus.

There is a worldwide network of electronic transactions run by the credit card companies which might serve as a model for electronic voting, you go into your local retail outlet and while you purchase why not use your voter authorisation card to make your decision, this would clear the problem of internet access.

In Australia voting is compulsory but I don’t yet know how all this works or the issues involved, though I can think of a few.

Here is a link

http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/factfiles/factsheet22.htm

The site includes further links to electoral bodies around the world.

When I’ve had a good look round it myself I’ll get back to you.

10

It seems to me that casdave is onto a very good point here… it doesn’t matter how easy you make it for someone to vote. If they don’t think it’s going to matter, they’re not going to bother at all, even if you send out some version of the Census Bureau to write it down for them.

Which is a huge argument for campaign finance reform. And a huge argument for outlawing polls being reported on the nightly newscasts as fact. And a huge argument for an Independence Day-style asault on DC.

Oops. Sorry, that last part just slipped in.

But, answer this… if the average non-voting idiot had the chance to vote right at his fingertips, would that not incline that person to check out the issues? Or maybe they’re just recognizing that those who are on the Internet are probably more informed about a lot of things* and tend not to vote out of apathy, but might be slightly more inclined to vote if they could do it over the Internet?

*generally speaking, there are some real losers out there armed with html knowledge and a crackpot agenda