Recently we in Australia had to endure a census. The body concerned decided to use the internet where possible for people to supply their answers.
They estimated that approximately 10 % of the population utilised this service and apparently it was quite successful.
Obviously the internet could be used for reducing the cost of democracy. For example polling at general elections, state elections, and even legislation could be stream lined and made considerably more efficient.

The only problem I see with this is that every voter would have to be identifiable by a number or code of some sort which would mean a that every person would have to have a file held by a single government agency. [ which of course already happens in the main ; Electoral commissions etc ]

Here in Australia we have attempted to bring in such systems of ID such as The "Australia Card" and others similiar over the years but failed to do so due to peoples fears for privacy and integrity issues.

It is I think facinating to think that one day elections could be voted on from home with little fuss. That proposed legislation could be polled before sending for ratification etc etc....

The cost savings would be huge thus Government would become cheaper allowing better distributions of resources etc etc....
Of course this is not news to most net savy persons but it would be news to those not familiar with it....

care to discuss?

The problem with computerised voting in any form, such as the poker-machine voting they have in many states in the US, is that non-electronic records of votes aren't kept. And that means the whole system is open to corruption. It is very easy to program the voting machines to give more votes to one candidate - "phantom" votes unrelated to the real votes of real people. Because there's no paper trail, such fraud is very difficult to uncover.

There's also the problem of individuals usurping other people's voting rights. To take one example, some abusive husbands tell their wives how to vote. That's a little harder to do if people have to physically go to a voting booth to vote, rather than sitting at home and voting on the internet.

why couldn't we use a process similar to windows keys?
win XP has a key that is unique, a process like that will identify you as a single individual whithout sacrificing your privacy.

Voting in the UK is already done from home, via postal votes. Not everyone has net access, but nearly everyone has mailboxes.

even if polling stations had a couple of net pc's instead of pencil and paper.....hmmm

james raises a good point with the abusive husband scenario.

i believe the paper trail deal can be worked out though.

The problem with computerised voting in any form, such as the poker-machine voting they have in many states in the US, is that non-electronic records of votes aren't kept. And that means the whole system is open to corruption. It is very easy to program the voting machines to give more votes to one candidate - "phantom" votes unrelated to the real votes of real people. Because there's no paper trail, such fraud is very difficult to uncover.

There's also the problem of individuals usurping other people's voting rights. To take one example, some abusive husbands tell their wives how to vote. That's a little harder to do if people have to physically go to a voting booth to vote, rather than sitting at home and voting on the internet.

very real concerns indeed, but I don't think it would be impossible to get a solution to.
Phantom voting is of course a huge concern...not to mention voter intimidation as another

Where are the main savings involved?
I imagine that counting the vote would be one of them

The most obvious problem - I believe I've already mentioned it - is not everyone has internet access.

Free internet-enabled computers for the poor? Who'll pay for these?

The most obvious problem - I believe I've already mentioned it - is not everyone has internet access.

Free internet-enabled computers for the poor? Who'll pay for these?

I would think that in the short term government would set up internet booths around the country to provide that access during the vote.

In Australia what normally happens is that local state schools establish polling booths for people to write down their vote on paper slips. I would imagine that this would continue to a lesser extent using a terminal and display instead.

The number of booths would be less at each location. And more importantly the number of officials would be less. A persons ID would be verified by computer instead of standing in a que waiting for the official to go through what usually is a large listing and cross of your name etc....

So I would think the cost per polling station would be greatly reduced.

I tend to think that the only intractible issue and one that Democracy holds very dear to it's heart is the issue of voter intimidation as described by JamesR [ husband/wife issue]
This would be the most difficult obstacle to internet voting I reckon...

I would think that in the short term government would set up internet booths around the country to provide that access during the vote.
OK, you've won me over. Naturally the results of the vote should be printable so that a hard copy can be obtained. I'm not convinced that it would be any quicker than postal voting, or traditional pencil-and-paper voting, so wouldn't anticipate any reduction in the queues - particularly as most of the population is computer-illiterate. But it seems to be the way of the future and an inevitable development. Automated vote-counting should make all those recounts a thing of the past too.
I tend to think that the only intractible issue and one that Democracy holds very dear to it's heart is the issue of voter intimidation as described by JamesR [ husband/wife issue]
This would be the most difficult obstacle to internet voting I reckon...
I don't see why this should be more of a problem than it is with postal votes or the traditional method. I should think that most bullying husbands will have 'convinced' their wives which way to vote long before any election takes place. An intractable problem, unfortunately, regardless of which method is used.

Along those same lines is the issue of being able to identify the vote with the person.
As it stands a persons vote is essentially anonomous. Using an ID tag would make the voter known.....hmmmm

"So the government of the day decided to act with prejudice towards all those persons who voted against it"

Ah, yes.

So that's why it hasn't been implemented yet.

And, in an instant, a solution occurs to him...

The IDs should be held on file to discourage duplicate voting but... not linked to the actual votes.

Hmmm... would that work?

OK, you've won me over. Naturally the results of the vote should be printable so that a hard copy can be obtained. I'm not convinced that it would be any quicker than postal voting, or traditional pencil-and-paper voting, so wouldn't anticipate any reduction in the queues - particularly as most of the population is computer-illiterate. But it seems to be the way of the future and an inevitable development. Automated vote-counting should make all those recounts a thing of the past too.

I don't see why this should be more of a problem than it is with postal votes or the traditional method. I should think that most bullying husbands will have 'convinced' their wives which way to vote long before any election takes place. An intractable problem, unfortunately, regardless of which method is used.

I am sure Governments have serously looked at the issue.
The problem is I think that whilst ti woudl be less expesive and certainly more efficient does it seriously lower the quality of democracy?

Is that quality issue as big an issue as it seems?
Would setting a precedent in the reduction of that quality be ultimately a disaster for democracy?

These sorts of questions come to mind

Ah, yes.

So that's why it hasn't been implemented yet.

And, in an instant, a solution occurs to him...

The IDs should be held on file to discourage duplicate voting but... not linked to the actual votes.

Hmmm... would that work?
of course but only if one can trust the government to stay a separate body to the electoral commisions.
The illusion of a separation if properly enforced could work. However it is only an electronic illusion and not the physical reality as it stands.
Example:
Years ago the tax office and the social welfare office were not able to share information and now they can.... [ here in Oz ]

I guess it is like "once the genie is out of the bottle......"

I think, potentially, given (a) full access for everyone, and (b) adequate protection against fraud, it could improve the quality of democracy, by eliminating miscounts. The problem so far seems to be poorly-designed and inaccurate voting technology:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-120-2213.jsp

The invention of a system that tracks votes anonymously, accurately and securely, and that can handle the massive amounts of data is probably only a matter of time. There are other problems:

In the 2004 US election, problems with voter registration, untrained poll workers, ballot design, and procedures for handling problems, resulted in far more votes being left uncounted than problems with technology.
But you can't blame the machines for that.

Years ago the tax office and the social welfare office were not able to share information and now they can....
I know, things like these are worrying developments and, in this way, the system is open to serious abuse. Unless voter anonymity can be absolutely guaranteed I'd say "no way".

I think, potentially, given (a) full access for everyone, and (b) adequate protection against fraud, it could improve the quality of democracy, by eliminating miscounts. The problem so far seems to be poorly-designed and inaccurate voting technology:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-120-2213.jsp

The invention of a system that tracks votes anonymously, accurately and securely, and that can handle the massive amounts of data is probably only a matter of time. There are other problems:


But you can't blame the machines for that.

I tend to think you are correct.
The gain would be considerably more than what our paranoias prevent.

To be able to trust a governement with the right systems in place to avoid prejudice is the main thing I guess. It certainly was the key issue to the "Australia card" system being proposed.
References to the behaviour of a certain German Government during the second world war seemed to be enhanced in peoples minds.

The history of the South African Government also shows similar problems

Ok...say with have this system in place:

Similar to what is currently in vogue on the internet.

A number of web istes are created that can be used to generate an ID from the government ID.....

say I am 111999999 and I choose the id 23232323.

After the governement is satisfied that I have chosen a unique Id the correlation is destroyed. and my Gov Id is flagged as used.

I now have an anonomous ID a bit like Quantum Quack or Red army...dah dah....

I can use this ID for voting purposes.

If I loose the Id I have to go through a process to achieve a new one.
The id also has a password, so in essence we have a situation not unlike what we have here at sci forums.

And due to the sheer volumes of anonomous IDs the government or others can not identify a person except as a single unique vote and nothing else. So the user ID is correlated but not the gov. id...
The user id could include electoral division so that area trends could be established as they are now

maybe?

Seems logical enough to me.

Here's an interesting discussion of some of the drawbacks and benefits of the system used by Californians in 2003, in electing their new governor:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3169706.stm

Again, the concerns here relate to poor design and inadequate security. It seems to me that most of the problem could be overcome by, um, better programming - although more than one expert has said that designing an adequate system is impossible.

this is what I meant by the illusion of separation.....thanks for the link

Most people that actually give a damn about anything realise the Policies are what should be voted upon and not the parties. Therefore they make their points known publically and who they vote for is therefore also known through their public support or thrashing.

This kind of means that there "Activistic" methods undermine any forms of anonimity in voting, since their opinion can be traced, But is their opinion traced? For the most part those voiceterous types are usually "Ignored" by those that are usually being voiced about, since Apathy and Ignorance seems to be a Political necessity.

Quite frankly any system involving a "Party" driven voting system is obviously going to be flawed since it's not like betting on a Horserace. In a horserace there are always random factors that the horse or rider might fall, or be caught for a drug offense or not be at it's physical peak that particular day.

In politics they tend to have two or maybe three people that pose to race however they have often decided preemptively which politician is going to take the soapbox that year before the race actually starts. Imagine you realise that your party isn't going to win so you just back who does win with campaign that they'll then help you win when it's time for them to leave their office. (Notice I say leave, since afterall it's rare [if never] to see a politician and party booted from office)