SIGN UP

Are We Wise To Computerise Democracy?

Avatar Image
ichkeria | 15:02 Tue 29th Aug 2017 | News
11 Answers
I seem to remember this coming up before.
In the end the hackers here did not actually change the votes, but for the future ...?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections

Answers

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately I think it's irrelevant but it is potentially dangerous. Even with 100% secure system, humans are open to 'outside influences'.
Holy Jesus. I meant inevitable (not irrelevant).
As soon as you tell a hacker
" this system is foolproof, you can't hack it",
he ( usually he ) will say
"watch me."
Question Author
I would hope no one would be daft enough to say that. I suspect it is more a case of complacency on one side and malicious intent on the other
One would hope and expect sufficient attention be put into any system that it us no more vulnerable to undetected abuse than the present system. If any country truly wishes to try democracy such a technical solution would be vital given the number of voters.

Perhaps with quantum communications and entanglement, any interception and/or change will always be detected ?
The current system we have in the UK is open to abuse, particularity from some 'communities'

Like it or not it will become computerised I suspect.

For the record, having worked for many years in IT, I am not sure it will be a good thing though.
We're unwise to computerise a lot of things - not least democracy.
I would agree, with Naomi. In fact, I would (now) insist on identification at the booth - goes against the grain, but ----
We are insane to computerise democracy. Using something that can be fiddled and manipulated at any point is no way to run a railroad.
Voters should present themselves for ID checking and casting their vote with all papers stored for re-examination if required.
Postal votes for the lazy and feckless ended and proper jail terms for those organising fraud, regardless of local tensions.
Question Author
I tend to agree that as far as possible "democracy" as in "vote casting" should be "open". Most people in this country go to a polling station where they can be seen (or rather "not seen") to be exercising their democratic right. When you start introducing alternative methods of vote casting you lost that type of openness.
On the other hand, polling booths are also subject to fraud. Ballot box stuffing is an issue in some countries. But of course if the actual state is involved in the fraud you are probably onto a loser no matter what method you have.
I think the scope of potential problems is significantly smaller with pencil-and-paper ballots than they are with electronic ones. I'd personally prefer that we stayed with the former. I'm not 100% convinced that electronic ballots will be the future, either.

1 to 11 of 11rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Are We Wise To Computerise Democracy?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.