| |
JulianBaezFirstPaper 11 - 10 May 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
| |
< < | READY FOR COMMENT | | | | Conclusion
Our Constitution guarantees us the right to take part in a representative democracy. It affords the people the opportunity to elect officials, if they choose. Many Americans choose not to for a variety or reasons, including the inconvenience of voting in our modern and crowded society. Online voting would make voting far less inconvenient. But at what costs? Risking our democracy and out freedom is as American as apple pie. But we need to know what tradeoffs we’re making before it’s too late. | |
> > | You got a good
discussion here, so let me just say that a reasonable estimate of the
change in turnout that would result from online voting is an increase
of 2%. That's about the participation increase that accompanies
every change— including Motor Voter, which the Democratic Party
hoped before 1993 would be a major participation-changer for
working-class Americans. Same-day registration, on the other hand,
has had much more substantial effects in the jurisdictions that have
implemented it. The parties both show little enthusiasm for it,
however, from the moment that it elected Jesse Ventura Governor of
Minnesota. It isn't just that the party of the upper class always
wants to keep working-class turnout down, or that the party in
control sees no need to enfranchise the other side's voters. It's
also that too easy voting makes organized political parties nervous,
because it decreases the returns to organization overall. That only
becomes more true under 21st century conditions, where the competitor
to a political party on election day can be a flashmob. Their view
of political stability, which is the stability of the party system,
compels them to maintain friction in the electoral system, just as
it continues to keep operating control of US elections in the hands
of partisan elected officials and their appointees, which no sensible
advanced democracy would do.
How votes are transmitted to the government that are not cast at a
polling place is a comparatively small matter against that
background. Hybrids of online and traditional snail mail behavior
make the most sense. A state, for example, can easily establish an
online method for requesting and printing an absentee ballot, with an
encrypted 2-D barcode that securely identifies the voter and
incorporates information that can be used to prevent fraud. The
voter then fills out and mails the absentee ballot as usual. Oregon
is using mail-in voting only statewide at present, as you probably
know, in all elections. The Republican Party there has not found
much traction there for its constant beefing about supposed fraud,
which it is always doing everywhere. If mail-in can work statewide,
it will be adopted elsewhere, with online components used to drive
costs down further. Automated authentication of cryptographically
printed absentee ballots will turn out to be one of those solutions.
The Post Office already has the necessary technology, which it uses
to authenticate postage purchased online. | |
|
|
Revision 11 | r11 - 10 May 2010 - 22:29:25 - EbenMoglen |
Revision 10 | r10 - 06 May 2010 - 04:49:15 - BrianS |
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |