10-26-2014, 01:55 PM
(10-25-2014, 10:20 PM)ookpik Wrote:(10-25-2014, 08:53 PM)JoeKW Wrote: I'm strongly against electronic voting. Voting should be by secret ballot, free from repercussions and intimidation from your boss, spouse or anyone else.
How is electronic voting any less "secret" or any more susceptible to "repercussions and intimidation from your boss, spouse or anyone else" than voting by paper ballot?
It is much easier to screencap an electronic vote than a paper ballot, where I presume the election officials will prevent you from taking a picture of your ballot.
(10-26-2014, 09:35 AM)ookpik Wrote:Quote:Basically, someone can be present with you when you are voting and cause you to change your vote.This reminds me of all the fraudulent voting the Conservatives were going to stop by requiring more stringent voter and/or voucher ID and checking at the polls. Yet despite the rampant abuses they claimed necessitated "reform" they couldn't provide any concrete evidence of such activity. Could this be another such phantom?
I think the electronic voting push is not typically associated with the US conservative movement.
(10-26-2014, 10:14 AM)Spokes Wrote:(10-26-2014, 01:01 AM)curiouschair Wrote: It was certainly for some other jurisdiction, but I recall reading somewhere that online voting actually resulted in lower voter turnout. I personally doubt that adding electronic voting would have any real affect on voter turn out.
In terms of advanced voting, according to The Record it's up 40% in Cambridge
Advance voting is up all over in the latest trends, I think.
More against online voting: computers really aren't secure. It's too easy to attack computers and install arbitrary malware. In terms of voting, that would be really bad. (No, online banking is not the same. The bank guarantees your account's integrity. No one can possibly guarantee the integrity of your vote).

