Can digital voting stop in-person intimidation ?

Voter intimidation is a real issue, how much of it there is harder to be sure, but when it's in person, how can a digital solution be utilised to cut it back ?

e.g.
For example, a certain group know where you live, they expect to be able to see how you voted, so what to do when you have to show them, surely that problem can never be solved ?

 

On

What group is this? Secret balloting one of the most sacrosanct parts of our voting system and and I don't know if even the recent Republican onslaught against fair elections is attacking this.

 

How are voters being intimidated? Can you cite a recent real life occurance of "a certain group know where you live, they expect to be able to see how you voted"?

 

It's illegal to demand to know how someone voted or even look at their ballot. It's even illegal to stand next to someone while they vote (ie a spouse can't force someone to vote the way they want them to).

Whose doing that and why do you think it's a "real" problem?

ETA: I don't mean "real" in the sense of existing. I took your use of the adjective as prolific.

 

Isn't this all the more reason why NOT to have mail-in ballots?

 

The problem is that laws are broken in the real world. People can be intimidated in the workplace and it go unnoticed, or unheard, or difficult to prove.

Todays digital world allows for voting in the private sector, on a poll on Facebook, or on your favourite TV programme. So why not in the political realm ?

For the vast majority this will be the same as voting for anything else, and without issue, but can digital voting on one's smartphone be made to help those whom are intimidated ?

 

Another solution in search of a problem.

 

I'll try again. WHY do you think this is a widespread problem? I'm aware of workplace bullying and cliques and all that jazz. Who or what or where are you connecting that to prolific voter intimidation (besides what the Republicans are trying to do to disenfranchise voters they know will vote Democrat)?

What else?

 

MJ Davies : "I'll try again. WHY do you think this is a widespread problem?"

You can shoot yourself in the foot as many times as you care to, that's up to you.

MJ Davies : "Who or what or where are you connecting that to prolific voter intimidation (besides what the Republicans are trying to do to disenfranchise voters they know will vote Democrat)?"

Where did I say that, and if anything your partizan views are trying to enforce that.

Here is what I originally asked "Voter intimidation is a real issue, how much of it there is harder to be sure, but when it's in person, how can a digital solution be utilised to cut it back ?"

Unless you have a solution then you're not helping.

 

fmw : "Another solution in search of a problem."

Voting fraud is a real issue, difficult to prove but very real.

Computers solve many problems that the West faces, so why can it not be applicable to voting ?

 

sounds like a potential nightmare .
wil the computer keep the result how you voted with your data/ip or whatever ? these days you can bet it would be stored somewhere.

what if the database gets hacked with as result a list of how millions voted.

imagine hackers doing the above & uploading a list, i bet alot of you would chek if my neigbor or wife voted the same way and so on

 

How is your inability to convey your message my problem? Spoiler alert: It's not.

 

Society is already familiar with digital voting; remotely for a commercial TV polls e.g. Big Brother, or in a controlled environment like a polling station voting booth.

It is already paramount for government elections to be audited after the event's climax, this would not be difficult on a blockchain platform (where the likelihood of a 51% attack were reduced to near improbably) as it would keep a ledger of all activity set in stone (as with BitCoin transaction). This can be done anonymously, if needed, as the IP info would only back to the voting station, and if it were an offline closed-chain approach then would not need fear remote abuse.

My view is that, at the very least, existing voting kiosks should have their code made open-source, and it independently audited at the very least.

However, I have come to a half-way conclusion that OMR would offer the speed and accuracy that a fully computerised on-site system would provide, whilst avoiding the remote attacks that bring about obvious fears.

 

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that you'd like to see casual at-home electronic voting but there are some problems with that, and you are asking us all how those problems inherent to electronic voting could be solved?

Or were you trying to suggest electronic voting as some sort of solution to the problem or coercion?
I'll assume not, because that doesn't really make sense.

 

I was looking for a digital solution for remote voting.

 

I am against any voting over the internet.

Hackers would lobe that.

 

Can digital voting stop in-person intimidation ?

Couldn't say but a call to police could stop it.

 

Sorry, that still is an ambiguous statement and I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Digital systems are too open to hacking. Other than the Democrats who want to be able to send people to people's homes and intimidate them into filling out a ballot and hand it to them who are you talking about?

Best system, we all go to our polling places, we identify ourselves, we are hand a ballot which we fill out and then personal run through the tabulating system.

 

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how big of a problem it is in most places, but I seem to recall some reports of random incidents of Black Panther types trying to be gatekeepers at a few polling places maybe around Philadelphia when Obama was on the ballot. I really doubt that in-person intimidation happens much. I've never experienced it or heard anyone I know say it happened to them.

The only person I know who ever really had a problem had to cast a provisional ballot because at some point between the primaries and the election his home address got changed in the registrar's computers to some new street that had no houses built on it yet. He never could get an explanation as to how that change happened.

 

It could only work in conjunction with a mail in ballot. You vote on your phone and receive an PDF to print and mail in. The digital count is made to call the results. The mail in ballot verification will be used to verify the vote and make the results official. If the two systems are not matching, it would be reason to initiate a full and deep investigation into hacking or mail in fraud. It would be impossible to fraud the system unless they do a poor job in voter registration and getting proper documents to prove citizenship and Identification. Of course any voting system that doesn't do a proper job of verifying identity will be susceptible to fraud.

 

I think security could be a major major problem in this. Who would really trust an internet voting system?

 

Voter fraud is a minor issue. Insisting that voter fraud is a major issue is a bigger problem, as the 'solutions' always seem to involve making it harder for people to vote legitimately.

As to your premise, it is bizarre and seems to be based on a lot of vague generalities and no actual evidence.

 

You're still being vague in your wording. A solution to what problem, exactly?

If I don't understand what you're trying to say, many other people reading this are not going to know what you're talking about as well.

Were you specifically talking about the problem of voter intimidation when those voters were voting digitally? Or specifically the problem of voter intimidation when they were voting in-person? or just voter intimidation in general, regardless of whether the voter would be voting digitally or in-person?

If I understand you correctly, you mean trying to solve the problem of voter intimidation when that person is voting digitally, is that correct?

 

Why wait until after an election to try to figure out whether there may likely have been large scale fraud?

Many times there will not be enough time available to fully investigate and try to sort through it, after the election. Even if it does not happen most of the time, it is still important because it could happen sometimes, even if in rare cases.