I'm not sure I care for the elitist tone in Dan's posting either, but
he raises some points that deserve serious consideration. Sure we
have mail-in absentee ballots now, but the number of people who
choose to vote that way is small and an absentee ballot split that
varied markedly from the regular vote would certainly stand out.
Today's headline's include concerns over the fairness of Peru's
election, just ended. Elections in the US have been free from major
ballot tampering for so long that most of us have forgotten the
reasons for the complex voting procedures we use. These were hard
fought reforms when they were introduced. We should look at Internet
voting from every angle, including historical lessons, before
employing it to select our governmental leaders.
Of course Internet voting has many applications besides political
elections. And I don't think anyone would seriously consider its use
in political elections until access to the Internet is nearly
universal. We have time. Let's err on the side of caution.
Arnold Reinhold
At 6:39 AM -0700 5/29/2000, David Honig wrote:
>At 07:52 AM 5/29/00 -0400, Dan Geer wrote:
>>There is no doubt whatsoever that the sanctity of a vote once
>>cast can be absolutely preserved as it is moved from your house
>>to the counting house. What cannot be done, now or ever, is to
>>ensure the sanctity of the voting booth anywhere but in a
>>physical and, yes, public location attended to by persons both
>>known to each other and drawn from those strata of society who
>>care enough to be present.
>
>So I typically elect to vote by mail. Is my vote worthless because of that?
>
>
>There are no replacements for the
>>voting booth as a moment of privacy wrapped in inefficient but
>>proven isolation by unarguable witness, a place where we are
>>equal as in no other.�
>
>'Sanctity'? 'Moment of privacy?' Sorry, no sacred cows allowed
>here, unless they're seeing eye cows, or nicely barbequeued.
>
>>Move the dispatch of a vote to a remote
>>browser and $100 bills
>
>So standing in line with the masses like some Russian waiting for
>bread somehow immunizes against voter fraud?
>
>>Internet voting is anti-democracy and those who cannot bestir
>>themselves to be present upon that day and place which is never
>>a surprise to do that which is the single most precious gift of
>>all the blood of all the liberators can, in a word, shut up.
>
>Yeah right... real purty flame there, real Daughters of the American
>Revolution material, blood of the liberators and all, but how about a real
>argument? Or is your retro dogma supposed to be lapped up
>on the basis of your empty, inflamatory assertions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
