Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Katharine Moody,
The Nats took an overwhelming majority of the party votes there (nearly twice that of Labour) – another lie by the PM (?).
Good thing it didn’t come out before the election. I have it on reliable authority that telling people stuff before they vote amounts to some kind of electoral sabotage.
Interesting timing for such an OIA release, too, incidentally.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Alfie,
I accept your point that online voting would make that type of influence easier for an abuser. But don’t the males you’re describing already exert a high level of psychological control over their victims?
Aside from what Emma said, the issue’s also not limited to abuse. Any occasion when a voter thinks others might treat them differently if they vote in a certain way risks coercing them to vote in that way if there’s a possibility that others might find out how they’ve voted. And if it’s even possible to take away evidence of how you’ve voted, you can guarantee there will be coersion all over the place (whether friendly or malicious) for people to start showing off evidence of how they’ve voted.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Alfie,
I’m sure that a secure protocol could be implemented to guarantee anonymity
That’s not the security I have the problem with, though. At best, an online voting system mimics the security and privacy around storing of ballot papers, which was my point. But online voting doesn’t mimic the security and privacy of the polling booth, where there’s a controlled guarantee that nobody’s allowed to see how you vote, or any evidence of it, except for you.
Relying on people to keep their own voting environment secure isn’t the same, because not everyone has that kind of freedom and assertiveness over their peers and others around them.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Alfie,
They’re not talking about electronic machines in voting booths.
Yep. I was responding to something Chris mentioned.
Horses also work perfectly well… we don’t need those stinkin’ automobiles. And as for those new-fangled computer thingies…
For general elections at least, where we’re still using secure voting environments and ballot boxes, do you know if there’s been any realistic attempt to address the social issues I raised, which are mostly a consequence of online voting not guaranteeing the privacy of a vote, and making it possible to produce evidence for someone else of how you’ve voted? Sure, electoral officials can presently trace ballot papers back to a person if they try hard, but those ballot papers are kept in a strictly controlled and secured system, and then destroyed.
That’s really my number one concern with shifting to online voting, or to postal voting for that matter, even though we’ve already gone down that road to an extent. It’s a significant part of the integrity of the electoral system that’s being sacrificed, yet so far everything I’ve seen in promotion of the online voting has ignored that it’s even an issue.
Maybe it’s still worth a compromise if there’s a likely benefit: we already compromise to small degrees to let people vote from overseas, or when they really can’t reach a polling booth. But as Craig also said, I think there’s plenty of reason to suspect that making online voting a major thing still wouldn’t make a jot of difference to turnout long-term if the fundamental problem is people’s engagement with politics… at least beyond the first one or two occasions when it’s new and trendy. There’s a risk we’d be throwing away that electoral integrity for no benefit.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I think the “internet voting will raise turnout” idea assumes that all the people who are not voting have ready access to the internet (and the confidence to use it for something as important as voting)
I think it also assumes that the reason people don't vote is because they can't be bothered to visit a polling booth, or can't reach it for some other reason. Even if vocal non-voters say that's the case, I'm not totally convinced it's the real reason. Maybe I'm wrong.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Chris Waugh,
I strongly dislike any suggestion of any kind of electronic voting, be it machines in the booths or online.
I think I could happily accept electronic voting booths as long as they met strict criteria. They’d have to produce a voter-verified paper trail, not let the voter take away any evidence of their vote. Also in the case of any inconsistency between electronic and paper counts, the voter-verified paper version of the vote would have to be authoritative.
There doesn't seem to be much point for it in NZ, though. Our current paper and pen system seems to work really well, and it’s not like it takes longer than a few hours for the result to be counted.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Alfie,
The Online Voting Working Group released a report last month examining the feasibility of online voting and it’s generally positive. Paul Matthews, CEO of the Institute of IT Professionals writes that he was initially skeptical but is now convinced that they can produce a workable system.
That NBR link makes a case for replacing postal voting, and I can understand how online voting can provide a system that's at least equivalent as long as some technical issues like authentication and security are sorted. The Internet Party manifesto also has a big section on how awesome online voting is, and that these issues can be surmounted, but those issues are all that it addresses!
Do online voting advocates have a clear answer to the social issues with online voting, though? Maybe it's worth a compromise if there's a definite improvement for voter turnout (I still think that's a big gamble), but I think there's also lots to be lost in the integrity of elections every time we do away with the security and privacy of a polling booth.
Firstly, it's impossible by design to prove to anyone else how you voted. There's no way to take any kind of receipt away from the ballot box. This means you can tell your inlaws or your employer or spouse whatever you like to keep them happy because there's no way for them to know otherwise. More importantly they can't coerce you to do come back with a receipt, whether it's actively or passively. But online voting means people could be passing behind you, looking over your shoulder. Voters might print out copies of their vote for who-knows-what reason. Laptops or similar could be passed around the union meetings so that everyone can cast their vote for the "correct" candidate whom we all support, etc etc etc.
Secondly, the ballot box system is very straightforward for 99% of the populace to understand, and trust. You mark some paper, secretly put it in a box, then real people in a secure place count the marks on the paper, with scrutineers watching. Scrutineers ensure that ballot papers are securely locked away, and if there's demand there can be a recount. Online voting is the opposite -- 99% of people immediately can't understand it, and need to rely on someone else telling them that it's reliable and trustworthy. Most probably won't care most of the time, but the scope's there for a big problem if people are ever given reason to think so.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Farmer Green,
I assume that almost EVERYTHING that I hear or read in the MSM is a consequence of what someone is doing on someone else’s behalf. There are very few , if any honest brokers ; it is all just entertainment.
Have you read the book?
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Farmer Green,
Someone I never heard of until he became a transitory media idol.
the whole episode was irrelevantI've yet to meat anyone who habitually took any direct notice of Cameron Slater, but if you've had any exposure to media in NZ, chances are you've been very subject to the consequences of his involvement.
-
Hard News: The sole party of government, in reply to Farmer Green,
I get the idea of learning from how an opposition did well, but…
Did anyone notice that National was NOT promising tax cuts?
…did National promise anything besides some kind of non-specific thing about obviously being brilliant economic managers and taking the country in the "right" direction?