Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How do we get more people to vote?
#16
Technology is notoriously insecure. Although, or maybe because, I am a computer scientist, I don't trust computers with our fundamental right to vote. It is too easy to steal elections with technology.

Systems where votes are recorded on paper are most secure.
Reply


#17
The situation could be fairly simple to correct: have an updated voters list.


This letter writer to the Record single-handedly boosted the voter turnout in Cambridge to 100% by taking into account the fact that her house and her neighbour's house reportedly still had 5 adult children living in the houses though they hadn't lived there in years.  While both couples voted (4 people total), the 5 who no longer lived there brought the turnout number down significantly.
Reply
#18
(10-30-2014, 10:51 AM)plam Wrote: Technology is notoriously insecure. Although, or maybe because, I am a computer scientist, I don't trust computers with our fundamental right to vote. It is too easy to steal elections with technology.

Actually I trust computers. It's the people who program and operate them that I don't trust Wink

Quote:Systems where votes are recorded on paper are most secure.

There are ways to game paper ballot systems too.

Never "misunderestimate"(*) the power of humans to find ways to defeat systems, whether paper, mechanical or electronic.

(*) A so-called Bushism coined by a president who owed his election to a failure in ballot systems. Just ask Al Gore.
Reply
#19
I don't think Cambridge had any canvassers this year. Donna Reid visited last time (oddly enough the same day we had voted for her in the advance polls) but nobody showed up this time.
Reply
#20
(10-30-2014, 10:08 PM)ookpik Wrote:
(10-30-2014, 10:51 AM)plam Wrote: Technology is notoriously insecure. Although, or maybe because, I am a computer scientist, I don't trust computers with our fundamental right to vote. It is too easy to steal elections with technology.

Actually I trust computers. It's the people who program and operate them that I don't trust Wink

Not very helpful. Computers always operate in a context where they are programmed by people.

(10-30-2014, 10:08 PM)ookpik Wrote:
Quote:Systems where votes are recorded on paper are most secure.

There are ways to game paper ballot systems too.

Never "misunderestimate"(*) the power of humans to find ways to defeat systems, whether paper, mechanical or electronic.

(*) A so-called Bushism coined by a president who owed his election to a failure in ballot systems. Just ask Al Gore.

Of course it is possible to steal an election. But that's also not a very useful comment. It is much easier to steal an election and leave no evidence using technology than it is with well-established paper voting systems.
Reply
#21
Of course there is the Australian system of voting or get fined.   In a democracy does that make any sense.         

Overall it is apathy we feel towards our system.   It does not matter who you vote for they all do the same thing.  All political parties are the same.   Lie, cheat and steal for as long as they can hold onto power.   

A mix of democracy, socialism, communism and dictatorship sums up our current form of government.   
Reply
#22
(10-31-2014, 10:11 AM)rickhd Wrote: Of course there is the Australian system of voting or get fined.   In a democracy does that make any sense.         

Overall it is apathy we feel towards our system.   It does not matter who you vote for they all do the same thing.  All political parties are the same.   Lie, cheat and steal for as long as they can hold onto power.   

A mix of democracy, socialism, communism and dictatorship sums up our current form of government.   

I think that's a correct perception of the public perception of politics. I don't think it's at all true, at any level of politics (but for different reasons). Federally we do see that different parties implement markedly different policies and emphasize different things. A Dion or Ignatieff government would have been very different from a Harper government. And municipally, there aren't parties. So, what's going on here?
Reply
#23
Well, here's one way to get more people to vote:

https://gigaom.com/2014/10/31/facebooks-...-election/

Quote:Summary:

Facebook has come under fire before for manipulating the newsfeeds of its users without their knowledge, and now a Mother Jones report says the social network’s experiments may have significantly affected voter turnout in the 2012 elections
Reply
#24
Nothing new here. The media has influenced public opinion for a long time. Now we have facebook to add to that list. Bo hoo.
Reply
#25
(10-31-2014, 05:09 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: Nothing new here. The media has influenced public opinion for a long time. Now we have facebook to add to that list. Bo hoo.

There's no hard evidence that the media has direct effects. Facebook actually measured it and did experiments on you (well, Americans) without their explicit consent.
Reply
#26
Really, there's no evidence that Fox News has direct effects? or Rupert Murdoch? or Lord Black? or Lord Beaverbrook? or Berlusconi?
Reply
#27
People have always gravitated to media that confirms what they already know.
Reply
#28
True, but that doesn't mean their opinions aren't further radicalized by the partial coverage these outlets offer. We even have a term for it: echo chamber.
Reply
#29
Internet voting fails on both accessibility and security concerns:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/20...board.html

Quote:Internet voting, a technology often cited as a solution to the United States' problematic voting machines, received failing security and accessibility grades in the latest in-depth audit conducted by the City of Toronto. Two of the three vendors audited by the city currently have contracts with over a dozen U.S. jurisdictions for similar technologies.

I've spoken to the expert quoted in the article (Joe Kiniry). Code phrases would probably be secure but they do complicate the voting process.
Reply
#30
How do we get more people to vote? There are many ways but I would use caution. More people voting does not guarantee a better democracy.

Last month in Toronto over 330,000 people voted for Doug Ford. The media politely calls these people "low information voters." And they are everywhere. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to vote but I certainly wouldn't encourage them. After all, we do live in a democracy and they have the same rights as you and I.

Last night my nephew and niece-in-law showed a video called "Ford Nation Folk Speak." Have a look. I would be interested in your opinion.

http://vimeo.com/110365134
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links