Is it possible to engineer a secure electronic national voting system?

First we must determine issues and priorities.

Since transnational affiliations are frowned on, and nationalism is as strong as ever, if not stronger, objections to Weapons of Mass Destruction are seen as unpatriotic.

On that score we are, how can I say, Screwed? (there is a better word.) If we say we ought to come together and protect the planet from Asteroids and Comets, well, we are considered not even worthy of any note, stupid, and alarmists.

Voting that is not connected to dollars, has little impact.

A national voting system is likely possible to work out for a connected populace.

It is an international voting system, and an international alliance of classes fighting for human rights for all, men, women, and children, that shall be a difficult reality to create.

P.S. As you know on April Fools I have declared war on asteroids, and in the past I've declared war on WMDs. - No Money, No Progress. -My declaration of war on WMDs is actually very serious and would require a real bloody war with about 5 or 6 nations, and it is a good thing I took my picture off the site. It is probably a good idea now for me to get rid of any trace of where I live as well.

Founding fathers faced down ridicule and persecution in order to engrave the fundamentals of our western society into legal process. There is power to be had, by the pragmatic use of intelligent tools: comparison, rational argument, and communication.

Voting (especially issue-based) is the priority, in my opinion. It is the start of self-knowledge of the nation. How else do you determine accurately what the people truly want? The media, pollsters, and even the legal system itself is fraught with potential misrepresentation.

The legal system, especially higher courts, deal with issues. There is little input by the citizenry. It is done by precedent and judicial evaluation. I think this does not represent the citizens wishes, or necessarily, any higher power or intelligence. Where is the civil dialog and record, except in street protests, blogs, and other nebulous means?

Chris

I agree totally with you. GA.

I was thinking maybe fingerprints, retina scans, voice prints, etc.. but in this modern age, even those are not perfect, or completely secure. (enough for a bank) but maybe secure enough for this system.

Chris

thanks chrisq288.

yes, the tools are there to do this. OTOH, one other crucial factor that will determine the "executability" of such a system, is, undoubtedly, Political Will. sadly, in developing countries, we see that those who've tasted of power, get intoxicated by it, and are tempted to keep the status quo. we've seen this, recently, in Iran. in the Philippines, the people are more successful, sometimes to their regret, at unseating any leader whom they think are undeserving of the office.

the bottom line is: do the people want it? in a democratic system, the people just might have their way.

Langyaw,

In systems, there is typically a ringing response to a sudden large change on an input, which then dampens over time. I know that the shock of removing a politician from office will have this effect throughout the system, but I would stipulate that, as human civilizations do make some attempt to adapt and compensate for gross error, that the fundamental causes of error would become known over time, and efforts generated to minimize them. If the causes of misrepresentation are financially lubricated lobbying, then these errors will become known by comparison with the 'truth' of the issue-based electronic voting results. Therefore, the errors should decrease with time.. don't you think?

Chris

I think you are very perceptive. GA.

I do think that people want justice and representation. In the most ancient times, people lived in city states, with a god ruling. The gods of the ancient world ruled fairly, and all could come to the temple to resolve their issues. Then the gods 'brought kingship down from heaven', and the people were ruled by kings like Gilgamesh and Hammurabi. These kings also ruled fairly, and presented their laws to the people for adjustication. This kingship was granted to people who were descended from the gods, after the gods produced children by human mothers. This system began the "Divine Right of Kings" and royalty ever since has been selected by bloodline. (also note this theme in The DaVinci Code) Also included are Emporers, Pharaoh's, Maharaja's etc. (Dalai Lama is a unique exclusion in ancient civilizations. it is by reincarnation. just imagine a thousand years of W.)

The Greeks invented Democracy and elected public officials, and had live debates over issues. This concept was borrowed by later democracies, and incorporated into legislative houses, even if, as in England, there was a royal family. The purpose was to debate issues, and find the will of the the people, plus the lords/landowners, and then pass the resolutions on to the Royal for passing into law. The Americans institued a President in the place of the King, and stripped a lot of power from the position. It has been slowly being put back into the position by the Cheney's of the country... thinking they are smarter than the founding fathers. In doing so, they are creating a gap between the will of the people and the ruling bodies.

I don't doubt that the masses will vote themselves 'bread and circuses' as in Roman times, and I think that it is important to have all points of view considered: landowners, military leaders, businessmen, women and minorities. I think it is important to have layers of approval, and a court system to resolve legal issues. I don't know about you, but I feel a lot of corruption and perversion in these systems lately. I probably wouldn't be on about this if I didn't feel like the fox was in the henhouse, and couldn't be distinguished from the farmer.

therefore.. I am proposing and asking if it is possible, to create something firm.. a simple but effective, and emimently reliable system.. a touchstone or cornerstone of a new society. founded on the best measure of truth that we can devise... so yes I think it will "really help in revealing the people's will?" and unless the gods are coming back real soon, I think we the people have to act.

Chris

in my previous post, replied to the question in your OP, that YES, the idea is doable, and in my second post, I suggested that it could be an NGO that can get this to happen.

as I read all the other posts, it dawned on me that it is possible for all countries to have basically the same system! I said "basically", because the system can be slightly modified only to suit the individual country's electoral system, but would operate and run in a uniform, secure manner. the next question that would arise necessarily is: "Who can implement this? " by necessity, it should be someone who is DISINTERESTED. and *that* can only be the United Nations. IMO, they can get this implemented, by decree, for all democratic countries, and they can, also themselves, oversee each electoral process. I think such method would be fair and transparent enough for the public to accept.

I hope that solves the problem.

I follow your logic, but unfortunately for me, the trail can not end with a goverment organization, because governments can not be trusted, nor can NGO's, nor corporations. That leaves international institutions which are not funded by goverments, but directly by public donation. (not corporate donation)

but even then... I don't trust it.

What I want is a machine system that can not be corrupted. It has functions that:

1. identifies the issue(s).
2. identifies the person.
3. records their vote.
4. irrevocably ties that vote to that person, on that given issue.
5. prevents one person from voting more than once per issue, per ballot, regardless of which machine they vote on.
6. produces reliable counts of the votes per issue.
7. prevents anyone from knowing who voted on what, other than the count.
8. secures the source data indefinitely.

Therefore, with such a system, it won't matter if the goverment that uses it is corrupt or not. (I assume they all are) It just produces results.... absolutely.

As I implied in the OP, this is just step one. secure the vote accurately.. a bigger issue is education of the public on the issues, and involving them as much as possible in the dialog.

Chris

a machine that does the functions you enumerated is doable and feasible. but...

"What I want is a machine system that can not be corrupted."

unfortunately, that is an impossibility. when humans are behind the machine, the machine becomes "human" in its actions as well.

how about a System (more than machine) that can not be corrupted? Surely this is what american founding fathers were after...

I think that we, the People, vote on most issues through our elected representatives (congressmen and senators). This is why we come to vote only once every two years, and vote for electing a person (there are some state proposals to vote for, too). An electronic vote on any issue would take the power from those representatives. If you are talking about this vote, every two years, I think that it can be done over Internet, but again, it is up to the same powerful guys...

... and in my opinion, those 'powerful guys' just don't have a accurate and solid feel for their citizens wishes. I think once the money starts rolling in, and they get educated in how the game is played, they tend to stop representing the people, and start representing the money. So what I am proposing is basically 'proof' that the representatives are off track.

Chris

Yes,

In Belgium, we use this already for years (I never voted with paper and pencil)

but there is a limitation: don't think that you can do this in a network, it has to be a separate system (voting separated from counting) and there must be a way that you as a voter can check the voting ballot on what the vote is that you will deponate.

It all comes down on decent people with the will to do it honestly.

Hi Gwen,

Thank you for that reassuring news. Is there somewhere we can find information about your system?

I'm not familiar with this word "deponate"... can you explain please? (I did goggle it, but no results)

As for decency, I think that is the core of the problem. Money has shown a definite tendency to overrule decency or right decisions.

I do think that splitting the functions into separately controlled groups is quite a reasonable suggestion though... kind of like intelligence being controlled in cell groups in the spy world.

Chris.

In a world, such as ours (in the fact that we are not presently aware of any other worlds like ours), with the population going north to over seven billion, just how many in terms of numbers/percentage of our population is attending, or has in the last two hundred years or so, graduated from halls of higher education ie:universities and have studied and studied and studied and wholly concentrated on one dicipline or another - population growth, polititics, world food supplies, environmental concerns, housing, diseases, weather patterns, economics, pshychiatry, welfare, criminal behaviour, ahe applied and fine arts etc.? My guesstimation is that probably right now that have got to be somewhere around 10,000,000 people enrollelled in universities around the world just studying and studying and studying their assigned diciplines. And probably another 50,000,000 who are still with us who are post graduates.Which is fine - good luck to them and all the best. BUT, what happens WHEN they graduate??? Do they turn around and teach, write books, write white papers or theses, go on the lecture circuits or television to proclaim all of their wisdom, or join a private or government think tank? I wish these people of higher learning good do more good with what the've got! All I was able to get was high school and an apprenticeship which I am proud of. I have to agree with you, Chris, is why do we still have to put up with ten hotdogs in a package and only eight hot dog buns in a nother package? Must be a Canadian thing, eh?

So I think you are saying that we have an increasing number of university graduates, but that they are not producing as much 'good' as we need? (I might call it effectiveness, but it is dependent on the nature of the goals)

ps. I have no answer to the hotdog dilemma.. but at least you can still enjoy them.

Chris

Dear Chris,

There is no unique idea of acceptability of a person in any nation of the word.

People do not have identical thinking or life style and this diversity will dilute the ideal image to such a level that final out come may be very comic or funny.

If businessmen / money greedy were to decide..

If warlords were to decide..

If terrorists were to decide..

If priests were to decide..

If earth blowers were to decide..

If beggars were to decide..

If patriots were to decide.

If war mongers and national wealth burners were to decide

If nation doomers were to decide..

If fake actors were to decide..

If ordinary citizens were to decide for clever out there ready to cheat them..

It like a game between knife and water melon. Whichever way it is played, citizens become game in any way.You have power to vote but it end up with that.

So many types of people are out there, and some among them find themselves fit for this political profession for different reasons and we have see such thing in all well known politicians of the world, so where you can fit a judgment key for them. One president starts a war and next spend time in cleaning his deeds and then next again start the same thing. It just goes on like a bullshit.

We have nations because we do not want to share resources with others equally. No-where we have one kind of people so not to blame any nation for it. Can we be just one human race on earth leaving aside all other differences? If yes then we will need only good working professionals for a reasonable salary. You can hire 400 Presidents for 1 billion hiring fee for each to do a job lot better than giving 400 billions to one to blow them and watch him do so, and keep waiting for a day when he will become sensible. I think it is hard for many to spoil a country than what one may do.

that is excellent. GA.

Dear Chris,

Not a single professional job is hired in a manner we do election and place a person on the highest professional job position of a President. Think of hiring an engineer or doctor by election to their professional job.

What kind of jobs these are that any one can fit into. Almost each and every citizen is considered to be fit to be a President in Democracy. Do you think they are fit? Is it a wise way to do it? Or does it matter?

Politicians are not really elected to be the best performers for the position and just actors are good enough to do this role else they will not find themselves fit for the job. I think many who are reaching such high position are useless and unfit but comic enough for the country men and women to entertain. What is so great otherwise?

To butcher a (wmd) President of a country other nation almost butchers the entire nation to achieve this goal. Putting them in highest position is so easy and removing them isn't. Election process from my point of view is full of faults. It may be much better to have them changed each year. In facts actions of the President need to be voted rather than President's position. President does not represent a country's will as we know.

If your President enjoys power and acts like a drunker then what do you do? Does it matter or will it matter? It looks like that people think that they are very powerful because of vote power in them and they are electing some child who will walk holding their finger. This Psycho sickness needs some real treatment I agree.

How many of these people can be judged to be the right people? Ever nation tries to find out that they elected a real bad person. Why there is no probation period to to keep good or remove a useless person.

I agree. I agree. I agree.

I think that with modern advanced sciences (social, economic, computer, engineering, etc) it is possible to simulate the dynamics of politics, municipal, state/province, national, and international, and to forecast the impact of policies and strategies.

I think that it is possible to create a voting system which will clarify the public intent on issues. These can be compared to, and continuously improve and refine, the simulated models forecasts.

I also think that these issue-based data sets can be compared to the political agendas of parties and individual politicians, and to generate a comparative report card. This is of value to not only grade a party's or individual's performance against their own goals, but to grade them against the will of the people, which is more important.

Another idea is that such tools can be integrated into foreign policy, and information available to other countries, and this will help with global misperceptions. I'm watching Morgan Spurlock's "Where In The World Is Osama Bin Laden?", and what is apparent is that people blame the government of the united states for the ongoing unrest in the middle east, and not the 'people of the united states'. I think that if there was actual evidence of the intent of the people of a country, and people from other countries see a difference between that and foreign policy, then there might just be a justification for Jihad.

What about people who get arrested inside a country for voicing an opinion which differs from that of the government? If the voting data elucidates clearly what is the will of the people, then perhaps that kind of behaviour will gradually decrease and be avoided.

I think you are right that increased education for political office is justifed, however, such programs can be perverted away from their original intent. (like extremism taking over traditional religions)

with my proposed simulation and voting system, i think that it would act like a reliable truth machine. people would come to trust it... would it be so bad?

Chris

Dear Chris,

If one country goes on war with other country to rectify the other country as its responsibility then, why there are so many countries. We can as well agree to have just one world one country. Which country do you think will agree of removing the boarders and its Armies and Passport and Visa.

Can the rest of the world go on war with USA because USA is polluting the rest of the world and itself badly?

Research itself is by iterations and requires both positive and negative information, so from where we get negative information? Remember that Hiroshima is the biggest information generator for Radiation damage and cancer research. So, which comes first? Research or accidents or bad human actions?

World is a highly dynamic place and all good and bad together make it more beautiful and not just all good alone. This diversity itself is on war all the time and in no way it is going to be one good good and good type. As long as we have some balance then it will drive the world on a right track.

Take it easy and enjoy what your Politicians do as you do not intend to take that job and some one just hired by you is doing it for your fun just for your 1-vote.

GA. I certainly can't disagree with that.. but some of the fundamentals are changing. It is a political choice to not teach the basics to citizens. I think immigrants sometimes have more awareness of the system and principles than do lots of citizens, as they are at least trained in it, and require to know the basic system. Also with guys like Cheney and Bush running things, the constitional issues get very muddy, and it is far worse if you don't know how it is supposed to work. With Obama being a constitutional lawyer it could actually be bad..who knows. All we know now is that he is developing debts that won't be paid for decades.

Chris

some of the fundamentals are changing

Fundamentals don't change, how they are viewed may change if one attempts to interpret rather than observe them literally as written.

"The system isn't failing we are failing to use it."

hit the nail right on the head. GA.

One of the basic fundamentals of democracy is that after the voting has occured and the result is known, everyone needs to accept it and live with it for the next period.

It is of coarse important that an external instance needs to verify the legal aspects of what happened while voting and counting but assume that this is OK. A UN organisation which needs to organise all voting processes on earth and tell the local government the result would be not such a bad idea: it would take away the possibility to adapt the votes to local "needs". An electronic system might help the counting as it is undiscussable: the vote is black or white, nothing in between which might help to alter the final result (what happened while counting the Florida votes in 2000)

Here I feel that many people just don't get it: voting reflects the will of the nation and if you're political idea's are not surviving the process then you have to retink you're idea's and how you sold them. If someone from a different social background has made it and you're beloved great wise guy didn't, reflects that the other has more social backup than you'rs.