Internet Voting

[ricechickie]

I've been doing my banking online for at least ten years, never had a problem.

That's why I'm in favor.

No, that is a reason you would trust the system. I am asking why you would be in favor of internet voting.

OK, in that case, I favor it for the convenience. Working people have enough to do.

And that is going to change with internet voting?

It's the same rationale as my banking. Instead of driving to the actual building, standing in line, and doing my banking, I can do it any time of day at my computer. It's more convenient to vote at home than at the polling place. Also more private.

So you are appealing to the lazy slugs of the world?

I knew that was coming.

Being busy is the opposite of lazy. Working people work all day and have to make a point to vote either before or after work. Better for the average working person if they can vote on their own time in their own home. Just like banking. Just like shopping online.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gee what better way to destroy the integrity of our voting system by allowing people to vote on the internet? Seriously? A foolproof way of voting is by paper and pencil. Paper because it cannot be hacked or manipulated, if it's burned or destroyed, people will most certainly know about it; pencil because all you have to do is fill in the bubble. People will most certainly notice if someone tries to erase something.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, that is a reason you would trust the system. I am asking why you would be in favor of internet voting.

OK, in that case, I favor it for the convenience. Working people have enough to do.

And that is going to change with internet voting?

It's the same rationale as my banking. Instead of driving to the actual building, standing in line, and doing my banking, I can do it any time of day at my computer. It's more convenient to vote at home than at the polling place. Also more private.

So you are appealing to the lazy slugs of the world?

I knew that was coming.

Being busy is the opposite of lazy. Working people work all day and have to make a point to vote either before or after work. Better for the average working person if they can vote on their own time in their own home. Just like banking. Just like shopping online.

You didn't see this coming:

People voting on personal computers with varying, or little to no protection, simply invites hackers to manipulate the voting process. Now, if we allowed that to happen, the 'average Joe' would most likely end up being disenfranchised.

Think before you speak.

 

[Freewill]

OK, in that case, I favor it for the convenience. Working people have enough to do.

And that is going to change with internet voting?

It's the same rationale as my banking. Instead of driving to the actual building, standing in line, and doing my banking, I can do it any time of day at my computer. It's more convenient to vote at home than at the polling place. Also more private.

So you are appealing to the lazy slugs of the world?

I knew that was coming.

Being busy is the opposite of lazy. Working people work all day and have to make a point to vote either before or after work. Better for the average working person if they can vote on their own time in their own home. Just like banking. Just like shopping online.

You didn't see this coming:

People voting on personal computers with varying or little to no protection simply invites hackers to manipulate the voting process. Now, if we allowed that to happen, the 'average Joe' would most likely end up being disenfranchised.

Think before you speak.

Hell the left was bitchin about hanging chads in an effort to steal an election and they want something that there is no backing? Really? Are they that conflicted?. I think this has more to do with butt burn then actual ideas.

 

[ricechickie]

You didn't see this coming:

People voting on personal computers with varying, or little to no protection, simply invites hackers to manipulate the voting process. Now, if we allowed that to happen, the 'average Joe' would most likely end up being disenfranchised.

Think before you speak.

Who said "little to no protection"?

I'm no expert on computers or the internet, but if it's secure enough to put your credit card number into a site, to handle medical records, to access your bank account, then it should be reasonably secure enough to vote.

 

[Freewill]

No, that is a reason you would trust the system. I am asking why you would be in favor of internet voting.

OK, in that case, I favor it for the convenience. Working people have enough to do.

And that is going to change with internet voting?

It's the same rationale as my banking. Instead of driving to the actual building, standing in line, and doing my banking, I can do it any time of day at my computer. It's more convenient to vote at home than at the polling place. Also more private.

So you are appealing to the lazy slugs of the world?

I knew that was coming.

Being busy is the opposite of lazy. Working people work all day and have to make a point to vote either before or after work. Better for the average working person if they can vote on their own time in their own home. Just like banking. Just like shopping online.

Go out and vote sometime, it really isn't that big of deal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If we could ensure that there would be no fraud, would you support internet voting?

With a near one hundred percent participation rate, which party would win most elections?

Nothing would change. 100 percent still would not vote. Not voting is a vote.

Not voting doubles a vote for someone you don't like.

Americans voted for the GOP this past Tuesday not because they liked them, but to stop the other party from inflicting further harm on the country. Voters are like white blood cells, they react to disease eliminating its influence on the body (or the country in this case). There was no truer case of doubling the vote that it was on election night. Democrats chose not to show up or they chose to break for the Republicans. Democrats may have very well tripled the vote of a party they didn't like.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Openly hand counted paper ballots is the only way to make sure the vote counters do not rig the results. I can think of no way to make online voting honest because there is nothing to recount. If they really wanted to increase voter turnout they would make it national holiday.

I agree on the hand ballots. I wouldn't make it a national holiday though.

 

[ricechickie]

Go out and vote sometime, it really isn't that big of deal.

I do vote.

 

[SwimExpert]

If we could ensure that there would be no fraud, would you support internet voting?

With a near one hundred percent participation rate, which party would win most elections?

This question is as good as saying "If we could ensure that there would be no corruption, would you support a communist economy?" Or "If we could ensure that there would be no lost jobs or inflation, would you support a $100/hr minimum wage?" They are all questions based on Harry Potter level fantasy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You didn't see this coming:

People voting on personal computers with varying, or little to no protection, simply invites hackers to manipulate the voting process. Now, if we allowed that to happen, the 'average Joe' would most likely end up being disenfranchised.

Think before you speak.

Who said "little to no protection"?

I'm no expert on computers or the internet, but if it's secure enough to put your credit card number into a site, to handle medical records, to access your bank account, then it should be reasonably secure enough to vote.

No, you aren't an expert. Fortunately for people like me, I realize that allowing people to vote on the internet is dangerous. Right now the SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is the best form of encryption we civilians have, it uses a two key cryptographic protocol (too complicated to explain) to allow for the transfer of sensitive information over an internet connection. If we used what the government uses to encrypt it's systems, the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard), it could be possible; but even still, AES is being successfully hacked and penetrated by the Chinese and Russian governments, possibly through side-channel attacks.

Our government employs all manner of encryption and encoding in conjunction with AES, including those used by our military, such as:

Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) - Key exchanges

Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) - Digital signatures, and

Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) - Hashing

No type of encryption is safe or secure, none. Zero. Zilch.

I've done my homework. You would take a lackadaisical approach to voting by allowing it to be readily hacked into or manipulated by malevolent forces? How reckless.

 

[ricechickie]

No, you aren't an expert. Fortunately for people like me, I realize that allowing people to vote on the internet is dangerous. Right now the SSL (Secure Socket Layer) is the best for of encryption we civilians have, it uses a two key cryptographic protocol (too complicated to explain) to allow for the transfer of sensitive information over an internet connection. If we used what the government uses to encrypt it's systems, the AES (Advanced Encryption Standard), it could be possible; but even still, AES is being successfully hacked and penetrated by the Chinese and Russian governments. No type of encryption is safe or secure.

I've done my homework. You would take a lackadaisical approach to voting by allowing it to be readily hacked into or manipulated by malevolent forces. How reckless.

It's reckless to have an opinion, based on the premise that it would be if security wasn't an issue?

You could certainly have educated me without the snark. Instead, you chose to be a condescending, know-it-all asshole.

Congrats on that.

 

[percysunshine]

.

'Internet voting'

???

Sounds like a flame zone polling process.

Probably a poor choice for civil governance.

.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's reckless to have an opinion, based on the premise that it would be if security wasn't an issue?

Security is always an issue. That's all there is to it. And yes, such an opinion is reckless; though you are always entitled to it. Facts are another matter.

You could certainly have educated me without the snark. Instead, you chose to be a condescending, know-it-all asshole.

You're right, I could have. But I consider 'internet voting' to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. People who defend it without knowing the pros and cons of such an idea are those who have no idea what they are talking about it. Besides, it would have been easier on me if you had simply educated yourself. You would much rather have us ignore the dangers of voting on the internet or by other forms of technology without taking steps to ensure such a process happens is secured.

Congrats on finding ways to compromise the integrity of our voting system.

 

[ricechickie]

It's reckless to have an opinion, based on the premise that it would be if security wasn't an issue?

Security is always an issue. That's all there is to it. And yes, such an opinion is reckless; though you are always entitled to it. Facts are another matter.

You could certainly have educated me without the snark. Instead, you chose to be a condescending, know-it-all asshole.

Good. Because you were most certainly argumentative in turn. It would have been easier on me if you had simply educated yourself. You would much rather have us ignore the dangers of voting on the internet or by other forms of technology without taking steps to secure it.

Congrats on finding ways to compromise the integrity of our voting system.

So, do you bank online? Shop online?

 

[ricechickie]

By the way, I have no power to implement internet voting. You know that, Templar, right?

Opinions aren't reckless; actions can be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's reckless to have an opinion, based on the premise that it would be if security wasn't an issue?

Security is always an issue. That's all there is to it. And yes, such an opinion is reckless; though you are always entitled to it. Facts are another matter.

You could certainly have educated me without the snark. Instead, you chose to be a condescending, know-it-all asshole.

Good. Because you were most certainly argumentative in turn. It would have been easier on me if you had simply educated yourself. You would much rather have us ignore the dangers of voting on the internet or by other forms of technology without taking steps to secure it.

Congrats on finding ways to compromise the integrity of our voting system.

So, do you bank online? Shop online?

Of course. But that has nothing to do with voting, now does it? Perhaps you should read what happens when people don't employ adequate encryption protocols:

The Target Breach By the Numbers mdash Krebs on Security

So forgive me, but I think I know what I'm doing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

By the way, I have no power to implement internet voting. You know that, Templar, right?

Opinions aren't reckless; actions can be.

I realize that. What kind of idiot do you take me for?

There is a difference between opining and advocating. You made an argument in support of it, and at that moment, your opinion ceased to be an opinion. You spoke in favor for it. Advocating for something dangerous is in fact reckless.

Just look at lobbyists, for example. They have a cancerous hold on the reins of our government. They can influence politicians, sway leaders and lead people on dangerous paths. Their opinions became advocacy, then their advocacy turned to action, and that action led to detriment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that is going to change with internet voting?

It's the same rationale as my banking. Instead of driving to the actual building, standing in line, and doing my banking, I can do it any time of day at my computer. It's more convenient to vote at home than at the polling place. Also more private.

So you are appealing to the lazy slugs of the world?

I knew that was coming.

Being busy is the opposite of lazy. Working people work all day and have to make a point to vote either before or after work. Better for the average working person if they can vote on their own time in their own home. Just like banking. Just like shopping online.

You didn't see this coming:

People voting on personal computers with varying or little to no protection simply invites hackers to manipulate the voting process. Now, if we allowed that to happen, the 'average Joe' would most likely end up being disenfranchised.

Think before you speak.

Hell the left was bitchin about hanging chads in an effort to steal an election and they want something that there is no backing? Really? Are they that conflicted?. I think this has more to do with butt burn then actual ideas.

You might be correct.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It's reckless to have an opinion, based on the premise that it would be if security wasn't an issue?

Security is always an issue. That's all there is to it. And yes, such an opinion is reckless; though you are always entitled to it. Facts are another matter.

You could certainly have educated me without the snark. Instead, you chose to be a condescending, know-it-all asshole.

Good. Because you were most certainly argumentative in turn. It would have been easier on me if you had simply educated yourself. You would much rather have us ignore the dangers of voting on the internet or by other forms of technology without taking steps to secure it.

Congrats on finding ways to compromise the integrity of our voting system.

So, do you bank online? Shop online?

No, he doesn't.

Don't fall for his lies.