QOTW: Should the UK introduce online voting?

[Saracen]

While I like the idea of more people voting, I can't see enough benefit from this to outweigh both the risks and costs, both of which would be significant.

So, no. IMHO, neither necessary, nor a good idea.

After all, it's not that great an imposition on modt people, meaning fit and healthy, to reqiire you to get your butt to a polling station once every five years or so, or at an absolute minimum, to be bothered enough to organise a postal or even proxy vote.

Exercising your franchise OUGHT to involve at least a luttle effort and commitment. I'd actually prefer a system where people had to earn the right to vote by performing some kind of public service. Working in emergency services, armed forces, teaching, NHS, etc ought to do it, 'cos goodness knows those doing that an't be doing it for the super-high money. Voluntary service, charity work etc, also qualifies. There no doubt are others.

Everybody else, at a minimum, ought to be able to pass some kind of civics test to at least demonstrate a basic understanding of civics, in order, to EARN the right to the franchise, which us not just a right but a duty, and a solemn and onerous one at that.

To remove even the modest commitment to either orgsnise a poostal vote or getting to a polling station and reducing the serious business of selecting a government to the same level of effort as paying for a cup of coffee with your phone is a retrograde step.

That's what's wrong with mandatory voting. Such systems might force people to vote but they can't force them to put even minimal effort into considering which way to vote.

So while everybody ought to be entitled to vote, if you require a phone app to get you to do so, you don't deserve to do so. Grow some civic responsibility and either go vote or at least put in enough effort to organise a postal vote.

The easier you make things for people, the less they value them.

[aniilv]

Costs? We forgetting about sending millions of letters every few months/years? Then still having polling stations and people who work there?

Yes, digitizing is a big one off cost, after that it's minuscule to upkeep compared to the ancient system atm.

Yes, time to move on from stone age.

[Unique]

based on the past record of government computer use. no

it was only a few weeks ago the NHS had major issues due to computer systems

whilst not the government, it was only a few days ago BA had major issues due to computer systems


we have a long wait to go until computer systems will be sufficiently secure to deal with this. at that point then in principle the idea may be good, but in practice now it's not

perhaps there is something in the current process that requires a minimum amount of effort to go to a polling station and make a vote that works to the advange of the system, as opposed to anyone being able to simply lodge a protest or don't care vote whilst sitting on their arse surfing the web, perhaps whilst drunk or on drugs in a state they wouldn't go to a polling booth in. many people may get drunk or stoned at home, but wouldn't dare turn up to a polling station in a state

[peterb]

The real question is "what benefit would it bring?"

Would it enable anyone who is unable to vote using the current systems to vote?

Would it save money?

I suggest the answer to the first question is no - and the second is not really quantifiable. The only cost saving measure would be some form of machine counting system, which would improve accuracy and speed up the returning process.

[=assassin=]

I don't like the idea of online voting due to it being vulnerable to manipulation from hackers, and I believe that they are the biggest source of danger than any other vulnerability in the existing system.

[Spreadie]

No. Not a chance.

I like the idea, but we are so far behind the curve on this tech and our electoral system would be getting hacked and manipulated by everyone from nation states to bored Korean teenagers.

[fail_quail]

Good god no. The level of security required isn't there and i'm not convinced is even possible in theory.

But again, as with the drive for compulsory voting, it's the wrong question.
The elephant in the room is the incredibly undemocratic mess that is the FPTP voting system. It matters little who can vote or when or how, when the vote itself is rendered near pointless depending on your locality by the broken excuse for a voting system.

Fix the voting system, THEN we can talk about stuff like this, not before.

[Rubarb]

I really don't like the idea of voting online, I've no faith at all in any goverment IT system simply because the people in charge of buying things don't have a bloody clue (take the NHS for example, recently downed by a virus and every peice of kit they buy ... you or myself can buy for about a third of the price).
Maybe if there could be such a thing as an honest politician people would get off there backsides and actually vote in number , now that would be something new and worthwhile.

[digitalreload]

The conservatives will never implement online voting as they know it would threaten their position; old people are more likely to be conservative (and go out and vote) where as young people are more likely to be labour. Enabling such a system would facilitate more labour votes.

I agree.. if we had proportional representation then maybe people would feel their vote made more of a difference (eg against 'safe seats') and would feel incentivised to vote (so the system of capturing votes wouldnt need to change)

[tag75]

Yes as more people don't vote than do vote.

[Corky34]

I must be looking at the wrong figures then as the ones i looked at show the lowest turnout since WWII was in 2001 and that was 59.4%.

[Saracen]

Yes as more people don't vote than do vote.

Aside from being untrue, as Corky quite rightly pointed out, it also begs the question of why those that don't vote don't vote.

For some, it's probably laziness, and it might enable them to vote if it takes three seconds and a click. But personally, if they can't take voting more seriously than a Facebook like, I can't see that they deserve a vote in the first place.

Others, and I know some in this group, don't vote because they can't see any candidates, or parties, with a program they wish to endorse. For them, if the voting system sent a gold-embossed voting card, and a Chauffeured limousine to get them to the polling station, they wouldn't use it because it is a conscious, considered choice to not vote.

Given options to postal vote, or proxy vote, anyone who can't be bothered to make the modest effort doesn't deserve the vote as they evidently don't value it.

[morebread]

Will not happen while the Tories are in power they don't want it to be easy to vote if anything they want it to be harder to protect there 35% Pensioners and upper class power base. How do you expect them to gerrymander a electronic ballot?

Think we have more chance of seeing proportional representation and that's a dead duck as well. ever one should just register for Postal Ballot and it should illegal not to vote? also "none of the above" option on the ballot that would take care of all of the pigs at the Westminster trough. If we built a wall around the M25 rest of the country would not even realize they were gone, what do they ever do for the rest of the country? apart from sell it off.

[Saracen]

Will not happen while the Tories are in power they don't want it to be easy to vote if anything they want it to be harder to protect there 35% Pensioners and upper class power base. How do you expect them to gerrymander a electronic ballot?

Think we have more chance of seeing proportional representation and that's a dead duck as well. ever one should just register for Postal Ballot and it should illegal not to vote? also "none of the above" option on the ballot that would take care of all of the pigs at the Westminster trough. If we built a wall around the M25 rest of the country would not even realize they were gone, what do they ever do for the rest of the country? apart from sell it off.

If there was to be gerrymandering of ballots, it would be FAR easier with electronic where you could just hack a database, than having to out in place a conspiracy involving thousands of people all over the country to rig ballots where dozens are involved in counting, watching and overseeing, all done in plain sight, in 650 locations all over the country.

[Ttaskmaster]

I'd actually prefer a system where people had to earn the right to vote by performing some kind of public service. Working in emergency services, armed forces, teaching, NHS, etc ought to do it, 'cos goodness knows those doing that an't be doing it for the super-high money. Voluntary service, charity work etc, also qualifies.

And remember... Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Would you like to know more?

I do not disagree with you or Heinlein on this matter.

The easier you make things for people, the less they value them.

^ This!!

[Csikasz]

Simply: no