Should we have Internet Voting for politics?

1. 58

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   We use the internet for everything. Why not the internet? If we voted by internet, this would almost cancel out need for politicians. With internet voting, the people could vote on the laws. With internet, the country would trly be run by the people.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Which country are you speaking of?  The U.S?  Hell no!  You know- the U. S. IS ran by the people.  The problem is that too many people think it's not their guy that needs replacing.  The Internet can do nothing about that, now can it?
      
      Internet voting in America. Now that's funny.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You say the United States is ran by the people? LOL

         replyreport
         1. 63

            RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah it is.  Are YOU American?  Do YOU vote?  Are not the PEOPLE voted in voted in by PEOPLE?  Anyway you look at it- Americans are voting for Americans to run the different bodies of government.  If YOU have a problem with the branches of government then I suggest YOU contact YOUR Congressman. After all YOU voted for them- to run the government for YOU.  Are YOU a person?  Is not a Congressman a person?  Isn't a district made up of PEOPLE?  Is not America a country full of PEOPLE?  Touche.....

            replyreport
            1. 58

               marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Why would I vote for people I do not trust? Is that logical to you? If we voted on laws by internet, we wouldn't need politicians and congress.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You speak as if the Internet is alive!  Who do you think controls the World Wide Web?  Or what for that matter?  Do you know the history behind the Internet?  Do you understand its code?  Do you know and understand the masterminds behind this code?  The Internet is only as good as its data.  The Internet lacks the ability to base decisions off of human characteristics and realizations.  The Internet is not a free thinking machine.  But seriously, do you understand the history of the Internet?  If you did- if you knew all the answers to the above questions- then you would surely know that the "I" in Internet is capitalized.  And that people would still be needed!

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     The Internet is alive. Are you not alive? Am I not alive?

                     replyreport
                     1. 63

                        RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        It's data.  I think maybe you and I's conversation has ran its course.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           If it was over, I wouldn't mind. All you have to offer is vision of who not to be. You have no answers, only questions. Your ego and arrogance is true assault on your intelligence, if you have intelligence.

                           replyreport
                           1. 63

                              RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Flagged.  Your insults are becoming quite assuming.

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 These are not insults. You are prime example of society's follower mind. Maybe you will reach enlightenment when you understand you know nothing instead of assuming you know something. If you continue to let your ego determine your actions, you may always be a follower and never individualize.

                                 replyreport
   2. 64

      Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      What makes you thinking it would be any better? Left to their own devices people will vote for those who promise less work and more pay, invariably, and the country would end up broke. Well, it is doing it right now anyway, so the current system seems to be pretty efficient in fulfilling people's will

      replyreport
2. 59

   lxxyposted 14 years ago

   I would say that in theory, it could work, especially when you get this whole Quantum Encryption thing down.
   
   However, that being said, politics is only a means to an end and not very useful in the long run for a civilization.

   replyreport
3. 73

   livewithrichardposted 14 years ago

   We don't need the internet for voting here in the US. WE THE PEOPLE need to get more involved in what our elected representatives are representing.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If we had internet voting, why would we need officials?

      replyreport
4. 59

   lxxyposted 14 years ago

   It IS ran by the people.......on Wall Street.
   
   You know, it wouldn't matter if iVoting became a truth. I can nearly guarantee you that it wouldn't quite boost poll numbers, anyway. The way many of the issues that are on the table are presented by the peasantry is often too confusing for anyone, let alone the person who got drunk enough to write it up, to understand.

   replyreport
5. 68

   C.Ferreiraposted 14 years ago

   Yes!
   
   Internet voting would eliminate the need for face to face candidates. Instead...people would vote strictly on issues.
   
   They have those "Who's your candidate?" quizzes which is basically the same thing.
   
   People would sign on, click on the side of the issue that they agree with, and at the end of it, the candidate that most closely matches that person's view gets their vote!
   
   No empty promises, because there won't be promises, just views.
   
   It could work.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thank You Sir. I believe most of "us" as a whole fear leading ourselves. We too often look to others. Others who have personal agendas.

      replyreport
6. 69

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   Why is it that people today think that just because a majority of people think something is a good thing, that it really is a good thing?  I can find plenty of examples throughout history where this is not true.  Besides according to the Founders, governments are set up to protect minorities from the depredations of majorities.  That's why they set things up the way they did.
   
   Of course, people started immediately breaking down those barriers, but it really didn't become a problem until the dawn of the 20th century.  Now we have no federal system, most power has been concentrated in Washington.  We're almost to the point France was just before their revolution.  I'm watching bread prices pretty closely.  When they get high, all hell will break loose. 
   
   Then the majority of people will want free bread.  Those that give it to them will have all the power.  Problem is that they will do anything to keep that power.  Including starting a reign of terror.  People who are power hungry will kill any number of people to stay in charge.  Stalin is a great example.  If we're not careful, we'll be repeating the mistakes of the past.
   
   Besides what makes you think that jut because the Internet is new and shiny that it will do a better job in an election.  How do you know that it won't be manipulated to keep people in power?  After all, do you know and does everyone else know how the Internet works?  Do you know how votes will be cast and tabulated?  Do you know how fraud will be prevented.  Hell, ACORN was caught filing all sorts of election ballot fraud and they didnt' even have the Internet to help them.  All in all Internet voting is a bad idea.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Excellent

      replyreport
   2. 58

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You posed some excellent questions. As far as security, we run all of our government programs on the internet. Banking is done on the internet. How can internet be so "scary" for voting, yet be alright for everything else?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You simply do not understand the mainframe and infrastructure code of the Internet.  If you did- you probably wouldn't want to leave all your banking needs to the Internet.  Now- that's not a jab- it's a fact.  You clearly do not understand the Internet.  While that's okay.  Most people don't.  But trying to even "bank" on the Internet as being the "perfect" politician is outlandish.  Outlandish that is if you truly understood the infrastructure and mainframe.  But clearly you don't.

         replyreport
7. 58

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   "That's why they set things up the way they did."
   
   Yes, because the way they set things up are really working out well. We are heading to a depression. We have a broken government.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      OMG.  We are not heading into a depression.  Just the opposite really.  The government is not broken. 
      
      Where do you get your information?  Fox news?
      
      Unbelievable and clueless all in one.  Perfect combination to make things entertaining.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You think we are doing good right now? Do you know that the unemployment rate has been as big as it has in 25 years? Do you know that people are still losing jobs at a massive rate?

         replyreport
8. 58

   marinealways24posted 14 years ago

   Do you not understand that our government runs all programs on the internet?

   replyreport
9. 69

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   Most of our sensitive stuff, military and intelligence, are run on their own dedicated servers and datalines.  The internet is inherently anonymous, which is where it gets most of it's power from.  You can't control something you can't find.  Napster is a great example of this.  They got their server shut down and that was the end of that.  But the Internet community came together and solved that problem by taking the server out of the equation.  Which is why we still have what is termed by some to be "piracy" years after Napster was shut down.
   
   This is not an attribute you want when voting.  You need to know who votes, where they are and if they can even vote.  You can disguise that on the internet.  Again, not something you want when tabulating votes.  Look at all the trouble St. Chad put us through in 2000 and that wasn't even electronic.
   
   MA, you haven't read much history have you?  If you think the government is anything like it was when the Founders set it up, you either believe the great American mythology or are willfully taking a party line.  We have no federal system, nor do we have an effective separation of powers anymore.  Ever hear of administrative law courts?  That compromises the judiciary and allows the executive a voice in judicial matters.  Justice activism?  It allows judges and justices the ability to interfere in the legislative process.  The legislature has tried engaging in foreign diplomacy, something reserved to the Executive, and passes laws defining who is eligible for becoming a judge, encroaching on the powers of the judiciary.  Our government was deliberately set up to be a decentralized mess of competing balances of power for a reason.  That would allow the citizens to live their lives unmolested by would be tyrants and collectivists.  We no longer have that protection. 
   
   Actually RK, we are in a depression and things are about to get worse.  Do you know what I don't hear on the news?  The looming reset of Alt-A and Prime adjustable rate mortgages.  We've all seen the carnage that the subprime loans have wreaked across the financial industry.  Those are just the beginning.  In 2010-2011, Alt-A and Prime mortgages are set to reset to higher interest rates.  Do you really think people will be able to sell the glut of houses they now own for the cost of the mortgage?  Most of those and underwater.  The owners owe more than the house is worth.  Do you really think they won't file bankruptcy or walk away from those loans?  Some of the more disturbing papers I've read lately indicate that the entire banking system is insolvent.  Banks have to hold ridiculously low amounts of cash as a reserve.  If the write offs will be as great as I fear, the write offs will wipe out the reserves of the banks and they'll be broke.  Why do you think banks are holding on to the bailout funds and not lending them?
   
   Banks make money by lending out money.  If they are not doing that, they have a good reason.  They're planning to hold that cash to offset the write downs they know are coming.  It won't be enough.  The amounts that need to be written off dwarf anything we've seen so far and far exceed the TARP funding.  In getting money for the TARP fund, the government has seriously wounded the economy.  By using the same tactics to get the money they need to save the banks over the next few years, they will destroy the economy.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I am not saying Internet Voting would solve everything. It could possibly make things worse. When I refer to Internet voting, I am referring to "ultimate power". If "we" had ultimate power, we could only blame ourselves for the decisions we make.
      
      Thank You for posting, very informational.

      replyreport
10. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    The problem with mass democracy is that there is little in the way to stop the passions of the mob.  People change when they get into large groups and large groups tend to crush individuals underfoot.  That's why I'm not a big fan of collective coercive action.  The smallest division of society is not the family, it's the individual.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       People change when they get into large groups and large groups tend to crush individuals underfoot
       
       Is this not what we are seeing now in Washington?
       
       
       The smallest division of society is not the family, it's the individual.
       
       I agree 100%.
       
       "The problem with mass democracy is that there is little in the way to stop the passions of the mob."
       
       I agree again. I beleive with the Internet voting, we could still find a way to find balance. I do not agree to no regulation, I agree to minimal regulation.

       replyreport
11. 61

    Pete Maidaposted 14 years ago

    I would love to see Internet voting if it could be made secure.  It is possible but it would take some work.  I know we have secure banking but our adversaries would great in incentive to destroy our election process.  They would be able to devote considerable money and talent to break in a screw up the process.

    replyreport
12. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    It seems like we agree on much MA, but I don't believe that people can be trusted with something like government and play by the rules.  "I can resist anything except temptation" should be the watchwords of any one in public service.  Much better to trust to custom than law. 
    
    Pete, banking isn't as secure as banks would like us to believe.  Nobody knows for sure, because the banks aren't talking, but it's possible hundreds of billions of dollars are being stolen through phishing attacks and other tricks of the identity theft crowd. 
    
    The best system for just about anything is decentralized.  If someone wants to attack us, great, what do they hit?  No capital, where's the target?  Even when the terrorists hit the World Trade Center, the economy didn't ground to a halt.  It took some time to assess the consequences then went on with things. 
    
    Private companies plan for the worst so they can get by when it hits the fan.  Public companies cross their fingers and whistle past the graveyard hoping nothing grabs them.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I completely disagree with you about the state of our economy.  But that is a whole other thread for a later conservation.  I completely agree with you on Internet voting.

       replyreport
13. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Just wait RK.  Ever hear the term "dead cat bounce".  If you look at the stock market in the 70's that cat was bouncing a jitterbug.  They did much the same thing then that government economists are doing now.  But we'll see. I really hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.  I've studied too much history to think that those idiots in charge know what they're doing.  I'm thinking of buying some land and starting a small farm, just in case.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I truly hope you are wrong also, however I believe you are right. Maybe worse than the economy, there is a great divide in our country that continues to grow. The follower mind does not see this. The follower mind believes all is well, even when faced with reality. With Obama increasing government control, this is causing more and more to individualize when recognizing their freedom is being taken when government makes their decisions. The more that individualize, the more chaos. This can also be said of a group of followers, however the followers usually "do as told".

       replyreport
       1. 63

          RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Bush allowed the ultimate power to be taken away from the American people by signing the Patriot Act.  So Obama is nowhere close to the damage that Bush inflicted on the American populace.  But I completely agree with you that there is a definite divide growing in America.  I foresee a real problem in our future. I understand your points concerning Obama.  But hell, so many of us are sick and tired of the hate mongering coming from the Republican party leaders- that it pushes most of us moderates further to the left.  Nobody is addressing that issue.  I wonder why? I simply don't understand the positioning of the Republican party anymore.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             The only thing I have to say about Bush, it took him 2 weeks to get water to Katrina victims. This is ridiculous. A president cannot lose faith of the people. Obama continues to lose faith of the people in my belief. While Obamas poles are high, we continue to sill suffer. I believe this will reflect on his poles when reality hits. On Bush, I sincerely think Obama needs to stop placing blame. I believe a true leader will stop referring to the past if they wish to proceed. If Obama did not want to put up with our problems, he shouldn't have ran for president. If he wants to act as president, he should stop complaining. He says himself that he knew what he was getting into. As for myself, I have never been good at a job when I constantly complain and place blame.

             replyreport
             1. 63

                RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Now I like to bash Bush.  I love it actually.  But I do have to defend him on Katrina.  His hands were tied.  The President of the United States can not act, until the Governor declares a state of emergency.  Bush was ready.  He even contacted the governor and the mayor.  They both told him they had it under control and didn't need FEMA's help.  Katrina was not Bush's fault, as much as I would like it to be.

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   This is a good point. However, should it have still taken 2 weeks for water? If Bush saw that they didn't have water after 1 day, why would he not intervene? Afterall, anything that happens good or bad falls on the presidents shoulders, whether it is entirely their fault or not. I believe this comes with the job.

                   replyreport
                   1. 63

                      RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Well Katrina was not Bush's fault.  And did try to do his job.  Its just that LA didn't want it.

                      replyreport
                      1. 58

                         marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         Did Bush not have power to overrun LA government in a situation as Katrina? If LA told Bush that they didn't need help, I think the LA government should have been prosecuted. I do not see how someone goes unpunished for taking 2 weeks to get water to people.

                         replyreport
    2. 63

       RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, I disagree.  But hey, we can't agree on everything.  So I guess we'll both have to wait and see.

       replyreport
14. 59

    Goldi3posted 14 years ago

    In my opinion, with the advance in technology people find ways to misuse the technology too. For something like voting for politics it is very important to have a closer look at who is voting. Internet can not seem to give that 100% security control as there are always people who can break into the system. For more accurate results its better we stick to the old rule.

    replyreport
15. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    RK, when you get down to it, both parties are in the business of stealing our freedoms.  The only difference between the two is who gets the spoils of the system.  If you're not a corporate crony of the Republicans or member or the Democratic mob, you're out of luck.  Gotta love progressive political thought.
    
    I lean toward Republicanism only because there is a small remnant of the Old Right, the guys who stood up to FDR and tried to stop his takeover of our national life.  The 30's were really the turning point in American political thought.  No longer was the argument between freedom and collectivism, but which sort of collectivism would prevail, "workers" collective or "corporate" collective.  We've been a mishmash of both ever since.
    
    Republicans tend to favor corporate collectivism while Democrats tend to favor workers collectives.  Neither party really works in the interests of it's constitutients.  They've gone mad and lost touch with reality.  They think a revolution really can't happen here.  They're wrong.  We either need a way to reclaim our freedom or it's going to get bad.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       America could revolt. It would not have to be violent, it could be done politically, but for the time being Americans are trusting Obama's admin to repair the economy with Paulson's bailout.Good luck with that! I cannot see America getting past this bust for some years, and great-grandchildren will still be paying off bank debt unless another way is found.

       replyreport
    2. 63

       RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I don't know if we have reached the boiling point yet.  But again that remains to be seen.  I'm a bi-partisan voter.  Matter of fact, Newt Gingrich at one point was my favorite politician to follow. There was a time that I supported Dole and Gingrich.  They did a hell of a good job in Washington.  But then Bush came in and screwed the whole damn thing up.  The Republican party even lost its identity.  The Dem's have pretty much been the same.  They haven't had the radical transformation that the Republican is currently experiencing.  Not in my lifetime at least.  But this new format of their's is harmful, dangerous and nothing more than hate filled war mongering.  Now as an American, I can't except that.  I don't think Lincoln would have either.  They are no longer the peoples party.  They are the fat cat, religious fanatical party. But I understand your view point.  I just choose to be on the other team's side right now.

       replyreport
16. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Oh, the government will repudiate the debt in the end, that is why China and Russia aren't buying anymore, they see the handwriting on the wall.  So sorry, but foreigners don't vote so the government will take their money to try their failed schemes and those suckers will be left out in the cold.  I really wish they'd cut us off since we seem incapable of doing it ourselves.  Then we could work through it and get back on solid ground.
    
    I'd never have believed it, but more and more I'm thinking I'll end my days skewered on the end of a bayonet wielded by a member of the police state.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       An interesting line I heard was: Debt equals slavery

       replyreport
    2. 81

       earnestshubposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       OUch! I really hope you can avoid the skewered bit!China always seems a step ahead since it started selling to the west, and I am wondering what the Chinese middle class have done with their billions of USD? All, not some of the Chinese I know hold USD.
       Do you think China will continue to put money behind this bailout? It is building infrastructure so I feel Australia will hold for a while longer than many economies. We came in with some 19B in credit and have front-loaded the bust with all the money we could muster.I still know it would be better if we had worn the debt and copped it sweet. What I don't know, is how other countries have any choice after the American decision to bail the financial institutions of threadneedle and wall sts.

       replyreport
17. 58

    marinealways24posted 14 years ago

    I would like to know how much more of our money the government will lose by taking over GM.

    replyreport
18. 72

    Research Analystposted 14 years ago

    Yes!

    replyreport
19. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    My dad was down in Mississippi during Katrina.  I don't know about Louisiana, but Mississippi had the Guard out and ready, supplies prepositioned and things ready to move.  Alabama was the same from what I hear.  Because they planned ahead and got ready, recovery was relatively easy.  Of course they didn't get as hard hit, but still, they were ready.  Had the Louisiana politicians been busy doing the same as Mississippi and Alabama and not counting the Federal disaster money they would be getting, then things would have been much less painful for people.
    
    MA, the government was busy turning people away from the site because FEMA wanted all the "glory" for itself.  Just like in Hurricane Andrew, Hugo and others, people from all over the country bought supplies, rented trucks and converged en masse on the impact area.  We're Americans, we've always moved to help in a humanitarian crisis.  FEMA turned them away.  They supposedly wanted to make sure the supplies went to the right places, as if people couldn't see for themselves that relief had gotten to a town or, gasp, convoys would actually talk to each other and coordinate that way.
    
    Next point, it wasn't the President, it was the bureaucracy.  Expecting quick response from the government is like expecting a sloth to run like a cheetah.  It gets even worse when you talk about coordination between state and federal groups, especially when they're all trying to justify their budgets and empire build.  That's why government will never be as efficient as private enterprise.
    
    Earnest, China has already stopped buying Treasury debt and Russia is buying IMF debt instead.  I'm not sure if China is buying IMF debt but they sure are buying gold.  Not a bad move on China's part.  In part, they want to offset the coming repudiation of US debt, I think that's why they're doing it while not getting suckered in by Geithner.  Don't fool yourself.  This depression is just as damaging as the last Great one.  The economy that comes out of this won't be anything like the one that preceded it, national or global.  Still there's a lining.  Where there's danger, opportunity lurks.

    replyreport
20. 81

    earnestshubposted 14 years ago

    I hope China gets the balance right, growth in China although slowed is still going to be substantial compared to the rest of the world, and a lot of infrastructure will be grown and changed this time. I know Australia is flooded with Chinese manufactured goods.
    The Australian miners will still be able to sell in to this market, but I do not see them being able to keep the price up with growth in other mining markets not happening.
    If Tim Geithner and his bunch of merry crooks are going to suffer no more than token losses while the American purse goes in to deeper debt I fear you are right.I had hopes that the new treasury would look a lot different, and the only reason left to believe in this admin, is that they may believe the old theory of keeping your enemy close!

    replyreport
21. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Actually commodities should do very well.  I'm not sure how much of a steel industry Australia has, but if they have much of one you might want to look into it.  Gold and silver of course will do well.  Potash is another good investment, China will need it to grow crops.  Problem is that they don't product nearly enough of it and will have to buy massive amounts of it.  Some think that Chinese farmers won't use potash because they haven't done so in bulk but it's recently caught on in China and you can expect the Chinese to buy a lot of it.
    
    Uranium might be a good bet too.  The shortfall in oil will have to be met somewhere, nuclear power is a growth industry I think.
    
    Not everything is doom and gloom in the markets of the world, it's just that the old rules don't work anymore and it'll be awhile until people figure out the new rules.  One thing's for certain, fortunes will be made and lost over the next few years as people get things right and wrong.

    replyreport
22. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    No the President cannot override the governor of a state like that.  Although that may be changing.  The governor of South Carolina tried to refuse the "stimulus" money Papa Obama is pushing on him and he might be forced to take it.  Most people haven't thought through the ramifications of such an event.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       marinealways24posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Do you believe the people in charge should have been held responsible for the lack of action? People died because of their hesitation.

       replyreport
23. 69

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    No I think people were foolish to expect someone to come swooping in like Superman and save them.  A person's safety is first and foremost their responsibility.  When the abdicate that responsibility to somebody else, they've made what could be a grave mistake.
    
    People had 24 hours in which to leave.  There's evidence to suggest that many who stayed ignored the evacuation order because they thought nothing would happen.  There would be a little blow and it would be over and life would return to normal.  They gambled and lost, some paid with their lives. 
    
    I lived in CA for the first eleven years of my life.  I remember stockpiling food, water and practicing earthquake drills.  And we lived on a military base.  In the event of an earthquake, we'd get supplies first and the troops would be used to disseminate it. 
    
    The quake still hasn't hit, but if it would have we would have been ready.  We took responsibility for or safety and because we did, we'd be in a good position to be able to help others should the worst occur.  If the majority of people in a place did that, there would be little need for outside help.

    replyreport
24. 57

    moposanposted 14 years ago

    its even easier to cheat

    replyreport