Verifiable Voting

               Representation of the public, whether directly or via elected leaders, is a fundamental aspect of democracy.  Yet, citizens who vote blindly trust that when they drop their ballot into the ballot box at the polls, their vote is counted. With current voting practices, this is about all one can do, but in my opinion something as important as voting should be an action that each voter can put full trust in as well as receive tangible conformation for.  Just as one receives a receipt for a purchase, it only seems logical that members of a democracy should be able to obtain similar physical evidence of their voting participation.
               
                Electoral fraud has happened in the past and inevitably contributes to a portion of the present decline in voting participation.  For example, during the presidential election of 2000, Florida’s ‘butterfly ballot’ was deemed confusing and some thought it even intentionally made voters mistakenly vote for the wrong candidate.  Such historical events make verifiable voting a necessary addition to the future of our government.  Recent advancements in voting technology as well as the inevitable transition towards an e-democracy have provided some options for such confirmable methods that are hard to ignore.
                
                 With a new method known as verifiable e-voting, voters could rest assured that their vote was not only counted, but also counted correctly and confidentially.  This advancement utilizes computers in such a way that avoids the fallible aspects of electronic voting encountered in the past and does so by not exclusively relying on technology alone.  Citizens would still vote on paper ballots, but the ballots used in this method are encrypted for privacy.  The candidate list for each ballot is shredded and poll workers scan the encrypted ballots into computers that decode and sum up votes.  After the ballot is scanned the individual can take take it home just as one can keep receipts for purchases. The electronic feature of this technique allows for a simple form of confirmation using unique bar code like images on each ballot kept by the respective voters.  These images can be compared and matched with the online database of votes and thus provide each voter with evidence that his or her vote was counted and cast correctly.
                
                 Advancements such as verifiable e-voting and other methods like it would allow citizens to be confident in their government and increase the level of trust the public has for the entire voting process. The mixture of both traditional and progressive voting methods provides the best of each approach, which in turn gives it more potential to be supported by individuals who prefer either method.           



CITATION
Electoral Fraud: Explanation and Examples
David Bismark on Fraud less E-Voting


 

Re: The Government's Response to Bullying Issue

                This past week, my colleague, Wolfgang Hanft wrote a commentary for his blog in which he argued that the actions taken by both state and local governments in response to the recent suicides of teen victims of bullying were a “step too far.”  He speaks to both the public and the government in hopes of convincing them that it is a “moral obligation” of “every adult” to be aware of and prevent this issue, but there is no need for governmental concern or laws that specifically address the situation.  In my opinion, the main argument of this commentary assumes first of all that every adult is willing to prevent or be aware of the issue of bullying, and secondly assumes that juveniles aren’t directly included in the persons recognized by the government to have an unalienable right to pursue happiness.  Hanft presents evidence that shows that the government has in fact reacted to the issue, but doesn’t present evidence that supports his main argument that government involvement is unnecessary or that it is mainly the responsibility of parents.  He concludes the commentary by agreeing that the situation is tragic, but “government involvement is not going to fix the problem” of bullying.  Although valid, the conclusion isn't logically sound because doesn’t address his primary argument.  His main argument wasn’t about whether or not the government’s involvement would fix the problem, but rather it said the government shouldn’t be concerned with the issue because it was the responsibility of the parents.  For that reason, as well as my disagreement with the assumptions made, this commentary made some valid points, but didn’t convince me or change my mind.  It remains my opinion that the right to pursue happiness belongs to all individuals, juvenile or otherwise.  Bullying impedes upon this right, and thus, the responsibility to address the issue belongs to the same government that recognized the right in the first place.  That having been said, any response or action taken by the government to improve the situation is by no means “a step too far”, but rather a necessity.