[LINK] Why Electronic Voting?

[Kim Holburn]

While I tend agree with both of you, I also think that these  
arguments work just as well against our current democracy.

On 2006/Nov/17, at 3:04 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Kim Holburn wrote:
>> If we had a completely electronic system of voting we could trust  
>> and that would give us near instantaneous voting results, our  
>> society could become much closer to a real democracy.
> This is probably the point that needs the most justification -  
> rather than just assertion. My position is that while the  
> "instavote" looks more democratic, its cost is a less democratic  
> process. You get to vote "right now" on something, so that's a  
> plus; but the ordinary voter can't look inside the process, making  
> it less democratic.


On 2006/Nov/17, at 2:56 PM, Stewart Fist wrote:
> I think there is perhaps a place for participatory democracy in some
> strictly-limited areas of policy, but if you look at the success and
> failures of the Proposition system in California, the damage done  
> to some of
> the State's institutions has largely offsets any value they may  
> have had in
> other ways.
>
> The winner of any participatory democracy race is the media and media
> moguls.  These messengers are the only ones who can exert enough  
> influence
> over voters to determine the winners and losers.
>
> Well-funded corporations supported by advertising-hungry media will  
> win
> every time.  And they often hide behind (supposedly) concerned
> citizen's-rights groups, which are backed in secret by professional
> lobbyists and corporate funding.
>
> I had the same concerns over the idea of the popular elections of a
> President in the Republic debate.   It would have been won by Alan  
> Jones or
> John Laws, funded by Kerry Packer or Rupert Murdoch (or both).

I always preferred the idea of an elected president for Australia and  
so I think did a lot of Australians but I think to work, it would  
require major changes in our constitution and parliamentary customs  
(which seem to be as important in some ways as the constitution).   
And yes we would probably get the odd public figure (Arnie anyone?)  
but I don't know, isn't the idea of a democracy that people elect who  
they want within the limited choice they are given.  Don't we have to  
trust them in that?  What choice do we have after all?

As long as we get to change the government regularly I'm not sure it  
really matters.  They all seem to get just as corrupt when they've  
been in office a while.

Kim

--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph: +61 2 61258620 M: +61 417820641  F: +61 2 6230 6121
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
Cacert Root Cert: http://www.cacert.org/cacert.crt
Aust. Spam Act: To stop receiving mail from me: reply and let me know.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD] http://www.saqqara.demon.co.uk/ 
datefmt.htm

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961