[mkfarnam]

Now they're talking about online voting. How convenient, and in too many ways. You could vote for your favorite candidate and by the time it got to the polls it could easily had been changed to your worst.
Or is there acually ways of securing this?
I seriously doubt it.
What do you have to say about, good, bad or ugly?

[Synopsis]

I don't like it. Too many ways to hack into the system and/or manipulate your vote. I think the voting process is already corrupt as it is.

[colleeng47]

Originally Posted by Synopsis

I don't like it. Too many ways to hack into the system and/or manipulate your vote. I think the voting process is already corrupt as it is.

yea, you're probably right. hackers could make mush of an online voting system. plus, i always enjoy the "going to the polls" and pushing those buttons. i always took my kids with me when they were young, and gave them the "voting is a responsibility" talk while we waited. in fact for the past 10 or so years, our township had a "kids vote" area at each polling place. the kids got to vote and the votes were counted at the local dunkin donuts and all the kids who voted got a free ice cream cone. it was fun

[peggydavis]

That's a good idea about the kid's vote.

I think the online voting would be too easy to corrupt. Only good thing about it would be when bad weather strikes on voting days. Other than that, I think it should take some effort to vote.

[briansgi]

Do you do online banking now? Do you do online purchases now? Online voting can have the same level of security encryption. It's time this process moved into the 21st century, it's long overdue!

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by briansgi

Do you do online banking now? Do you do online purchases now? Online voting can have the same level of security encryption. It's time this process moved into the 21st century, it's long overdue!

You've got a point about online banking and such. However, the voting process is a singular instance across the country that selects the leaders of our state and country. Many politicians, their handlers, and lobbyists are already corrupt as it is and I want to see a definitive paper trail rather than some software that can be manipulated to affect all votes in a large region. Yes, paper votes can be manipulated as well (does anyone have a hanging chad), but there are checks and balances in place that can be watched by people without a software engineering degree.

[Goodpasture]

not only should they not be online, they should not be electronic anything. There should be a paper ballet, marked by an indelible ink, by a human being, counted by hand, a verification hand count, with monitors from every party watching. If it takes a week to get the results, fine. We don't have to know by Tuesday evening at 7:30 who won the election. they won't be installed in office till January anyway.

[Secret Samadhi]

I don't like the idea of online voting. Yes, it would be extremely convenient, but far too easy to get unreliable results. I wish we just had paper ballots because, even though it would take a considerable amount of time to count them, I'd be far more likely to trust the results.

[peggydavis]

We have the paper ballots where I vote. They are counted by the machine but they can be counted by hand.

[karibear]

I don't much care how the voting is done, as long as it includes a paper trail and the ability to be re-counted. I guess that would kind of eliminate a lot of methods... Too bad there isn't some way to tie voting to social security numbers, I'd bet that would cut down on the graveyard votes. And what was the name of that one little town in OH or IN or somewhere like that, a town of a few thousand people total, who got credited with giving Dubya votes of at least triple the town's population? I wonder just who counted all those votes.