| |||||||||||||
Securing our votesSecuring our votesPosted Aug 9, 2007 16:39 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)Parent article: Securing our votes
Though it is certainly terrible not to meet the needs of some individual voters, safeguarding the election process and accurately reporting the vote totals need to be higher priorities. I don't agree. Accessibility to all voters is critical. A voter who can't cast a ballot has been disenfranchised. Any system that systematically disenfranchises a predictable subset of voters is irretrievably flawed.
(Log in to post comments)
Securing our votes Posted Aug 9, 2007 20:27 UTC (Thu) by phiggins (subscriber, #5605) [Link] Not being able to count the votes cast correctly and having that count easily manipulated takes disenfranchisement to a whole new level. I'm afraid that I just wouldn't care whether I or anyone else got to cast a vote or not if I knew that I couldn't trust the votes to be counted correctly. It makes the entire election process completely pointless.
And? Posted Aug 28, 2007 21:05 UTC (Tue) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link] >>I don't agree. Accessibility to all voters is critical.
Sure, but security is also critical, secrecy is also critical, etc.
>> A voter who can't cast a ballot has been disenfranchised.
That's not true, if a voter cannot cast a ballot alone, he can still vote if you authorise him to have a helper or someone which can cast a vote for him, of course this possibility also gives the possibility of buying votes, it's a tradeoff.
>>Any system that systematically disenfranchises a predictable subset of voters is irretrievably flawed.
Then all the systems are 'irretrievably flawed', what's your point?
|
|||||||||||||