Elektronisk hjemmestemming, et godt valg?

[ole_marius]

Som emne tittelen antyder så skal kommende kommunevalget ha et prøveprosjekt hvorav 200.000 nordmenn sprett over 11 kommuner ha mulighet for å stemme hjemme på sin egen PC.

 

Argumenter er at flere unge velgere kommer til å stemme, samt at de påstår at systemet ikke skal være mulighet for å hackes. Men er dette riktig? Med EU's direktiv om nettlagring vil det bli mulighet for å finne ut hva du stemmer på, men viktigst av alt så kan man ikke gi velgere flere muligheter for å stemme. Partiene selv må ta å føre ann en politikk som faller i smak for velgerne som ikke stemmer.

 

Kilde:

[Uderzo]

Jeg synes det er en god idé, sålenge et slikt system er bunn solid. Men det er vel vanskelig å få til?

Men det er vel en naturlig utvikling, vi gjør allerede mye på nettet. Jeg ønsker et stemmesystem på nett velkommen, så lenge sikkerheten er bunnsolid og har en god måte å identifisere velgeren.

[Camlon]

De som ikke gidder å stikke til valglokalet har heller ingen grunn til å stemme. Jeg har aldri forstått hvorfor man ønsker å få folk som ikke bryr seg til å stemme.

[Jens72]

Helt enig med Camlon. Hvor vanskelig skal det være å dra seg innom et bibliotek el. og forhåndstemme en gang hvert andre år?

 

Jeg tror det handler om det samme som den norske arbeidsledighetsraten; statistikken skal se fint ut på papiret selv om den sier ingenting om den reele situasjon... i dette tilfellet grad av demokrati.

[Snorre]

Personer som ikke tar seg bryet med å dra til stemmelokalet en dag hvert andre år har vel sannsynligvis heller ikke giddet å sette seg inn i politikken/valgprogrammene til de ulike partiene. Det gjelder nok sikkert en del av de som drar og stemmer også. Men hvis man virkelig ikke gidder å dra til valglokalene, er man da særlig interessert i å stemme? Jeg tror de mest samfunnsbevisste og politisk engasjerte borgerne allerede er de som stemmer. Jeg ser ikke på det som et stort tap at en uengasjert borger som ikke har så alt for stor innsikt i de poilitiske partiene og politikken de fører ikke stemmer. Men det er kanskje bare meg.

 

Jeg kan se for meg at et slikt system kan være nyttig for folk med funksjonshemninger som har problemer med å få kommet seg til stemmelokalet, eller folk som tilfeldigvis befinner seg utenlands. På en annen side kan jo systemet misbrukes ved at eventuelle hjemmehjelper, familiemedlemmer og lignende misbruker stillingen sin og stemmer på det partiet de foretrekker. Man kan også se for seg situasjoner der innvandrermannen tvinger konen til å stemme på samme parti som dem selv. Ved å kreve at stemming foregår i lokaler under strengt oppsyn sikrer man at stemmingen forblir anonym.

 

Hvis jeg ikke tar helt feil vil vel en eventuell stemme sendes som en URL til web-serveren som håndterer stemmesystemet, og dermed lagres som en del av trafikkdataen hos internettleverandør. Om datalagringsdirektivet innføres vil isåfall myndighetene kunne få tilgang til informasjon de ikke bør ha tilgang til. Et internettbasert stemmesystem bør også være vanntett hva sikkerhet angår, men det finnes vel så godt som ingen helt vanntette informasjonssystem. Sikkerhetsmessig vil det være uforsvarlig å ha et slikt system da eventuelle hackere med nok ferdigheter eventuelt vil kunne hente ut informasjon om hvilke IP-er eventuelt personer som har stemt hva. Nei, for meg høres det for skummelt ut.

Endret 21. januar 2010 av Snorre

[sondre94]

Det finnes også mennesker med sosial angst som kan ha problemer med å komme seg til stemmelokalene. Er for at de skal få stemme hjemme.

[Løve]

Sett fra et teknologisk perspektiv er dette en ekstremt dårlig idé.

[sumptrollet]

Som emne tittelen antyder så skal kommende kommunevalget ha et prøveprosjekt hvorav 200.000 nordmenn sprett over 11 kommuner ha mulighet for å stemme hjemme på sin egen PC.

 

Argumenter er at flere unge velgere kommer til å stemme, samt at de påstår at systemet ikke skal være mulighet for å hackes. Men er dette riktig? Med EU's direktiv om nettlagring vil det bli mulighet for å finne ut hva du stemmer på, men viktigst av alt så kan man ikke gi velgere flere muligheter for å stemme. Partiene selv må ta å føre ann en politikk som faller i smak for velgerne som ikke stemmer.

 

Kilde:

 

Stemming kommer garantert til å foregå over en kryptert forbindelse som internettleverandøren din ikke logger innholdet i.

 

E-valg er en ufattelig dårlig idé av flere årsaker:

-Datasikkerhetsmessig, hjemmemaskinen til Ola Nordmann er infisert av en trojan og muligheten for at valget ikke er så hemmelig lengre er unektelig tilstede.

-Man har ingen måte å verifisere at vedkommende som stemmer er hvem man utgir seg for å være - familiens overhode kan stemme for hele familien. Oppmøte i valglokale er i teorien anonymt, med unntak av når velmenende idioter lar et familiemedlem 'hjelpe' resten av familien med å stemme inne i stemmebåsen.

 

 

Hvis ungdommen er så late at de ikke gidder å stikke innom valglokalet for å stemme kan de la vær å stemme. Helst burde man jo kunne stemme via Facebook/Twitter/MSN

 

 

Jeg synes det er en god idé, sålenge et slikt system er bunn solid. Men det er vel vanskelig å få til?

Men det er vel en naturlig utvikling, vi gjør allerede mye på nettet. Jeg ønsker et stemmesystem på nett velkommen, så lenge sikkerheten er bunnsolid og har en god måte å identifisere velgeren.

 

Beviselig umulig.

[Herr Brun]

Nei takk. Helt hårreisende imo., at dette gjennomføres.

[Marxisten]

Det bør ikke være et mål å få flest mulig til å stemme. Kun mennesker som har tenkt nøye gjennom hva de gjør, bør stemme. Fra Tea Party Journal:

 

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Are you Qualified to Vote?

It is my conviction that voting in a free society is a solemn responsibility. Having the maturity and thoughtfulness that enables you to make a correct voting decision is a high standard that everyone should seek. If you are not able to vote with the utmost of your intelligence, your vote would invalidate the vote of a person who has given due diligence to his choice. More than this, you might be contributing to the election of a charlatan or thief.

 

Certainly, no one should keep a free citizen from voting. But there are some reasons why you should voluntarily refrain from participating in the vote. These have to do with whether you are able to make the right voting decision. This has to do with your ability to think through the issues in any election with a proper philosophical orientation that makes a correct voting decision possible. It has to do with whether you are intellectually independent and self-confident enough to be dispassionate about issues that directly affect your life and the lives of your fellow citizens. I have identified three reasons that, if they apply to you, should convince you that you should not vote.

 

Reason #1. You may not be qualified to vote if you have never held a steady job.

 

Employed people generally have an interest in a strong economy and want governmental policies and laws that enable both businesses and employees to function well. This is because government has the power to restrict business activity through high taxes, burdensome regulations and government grants. Contrary to the opinion of many, it makes a difference whether a business is free or shackled by government regulations.

 

What does it mean to “participate in a productive job?” It means living a moral life, using your thinking and skills to create values that other people want to buy. When you take a job, you must develop a sense of discipline in your life; you must build your life around the requirements of working. You must plan your life across a number of years. In short, it means that you accept the responsibility of providing for yourself. This affects your voting decisions and gives you a strong stake in voting for the right people who will help you reach your long-term goals.

 

If you are enjoying the benefits of having your own income, home and appliances, even a car, you would have an entirely different approach to voting than if you have never taken responsibility for your own support. If a candidate offered programs to help the poor, a person who had never held a steady job might vote differently than a self-sufficient voter. The irresponsible person might vote for a politician who wants to re-distribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers. This would be a moral travesty.

 

Reason #2. You may not be qualified to vote if you are on government relief

 

Government relief does an interesting thing to many of those who are its beneficiaries. It often encourages people to be satisfied with having their needs met by government. It establishes the idea in the minds of the beneficiaries that it is the duty of all other citizens to provide for their well being. Certainly, government does a lot to create this illusion and that is because it wants the votes of those beneficiaries. Although some people believe this idea is unquestionable, I think most people know that getting something from others while not earning it is immoral. Further, this premise encourages the growth of government and is antithetical to the principles of a free society.

 

A social progressive would disagree with me about whether you should vote because his/her political ideal is a society where the more able will provide the funds to support the less able. The people who would benefit from welfare programs are the very people from whom the social progressive would seek support. In my view, this is precisely why the person getting government relief is not qualified to vote. What gives any person the right to demand that another person should be forced to supply his support?

 

If you advocate such force, what is the difference between you and a thief? Does not the thief think he is justified in taking someone’s money? Does not the thief think that people who have money and goods do not deserve their money and that he does? Morally, there is no difference between a thief and an advocate of income redistribution. Both forms of redistribution are a violation of the right of every citizen to the pursuit of happiness. And the damage done to the provider of the funds taken by forcible confiscation is equally as bad as that which accrues to him from theft. The productive person has to work harder because his time and energy have been expropriated (it takes time and energy to make money) and his right to pursue happiness is also thwarted…while the person who receives the money will generally squander it.

 

The one irrefutable fact regarding redistributed money is that it does not belong to the recipient nor does it belong to the government. It belongs to the person who earned it and no one has a moral right to take it from him. Money earned by an individual would not exist were it not for the choice (to work) of the person earning it. And since the person who receives the money from government as a beneficiary did not choose to make it, that fact makes the redistribution of money a crime. No point of altruism, no exploitation theory and no right can be mustered that gives anyone the right to take something from one person and give it to another. One thing is certain: the best way to ensure that production stops and society descends into group warfare is to make living impossible for the talented and educated.

 

Progressives never say they want to stop production or punish success. But their policies are not only immoral (as is theft) but impractical. You cannot expect the victim to continue to allow theft of his property. Eventually, he will tire of working hard for others or he will realize that the entire social welfare scheme is a fraud and a lie. He may join the Tea Parties. In other cases, he will do what is his right and protect his property against the marauders of government.

 

How can the government reconcile this moral lapse? Because it seeks, more than anything, to establish the principle of redistribution in the minds of people, originally in just a small way, in order to ensure that people buy into the principle. The rest will only be application of the principle and you see that there is more redistribution taking place in a variety of other ways. Whether it is through volunteerism (which is a scheme for stealing the energy of people – a form of concentration camps), higher taxes (which is overt theft of the property of the able), the Fairness Doctrine (which is a way of destroying freedom of speech and stealing from people their right to think), to Foreign Policy (which is a plan to loot the American economy for the sake of George Soros (Open Society) and the developing world) to providing grants to local community organizers such as ACORN(which is an effort to loot the treasury and give it to people who will get rich on redistribution of money to community organizers and corrupt real estate developers – See Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), you can be sure that there will be no end to the looting and no end to the propaganda that promotes sacrifice. You can be sure that it won’t be long before we are totally bankrupt.

 

As Ayn Rand says, “It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”[1]

 

Reason #3. You may not be qualified to vote if you are in college or a college graduate.

 

You may not be qualified to vote if you have been influenced heavily by the prevailing philosophies taught in our nation’s colleges and universities. Higher education today is supposed to be an open forum for ideas. Its goal at one time (a very long time ago) was to teach the student to think critically, to be open to new ideas and learn how to evaluate ideas in an unbiased manner. This is not the goal today. If you went to college to get a good education, you have been cheated. Let’s look at some of the influences.

 

Hume/Kant Axis

 

David Hume and Immanuel Kant are two philosophers who have had devastating influence on the ability of our young people to think. Their ideas have poisoned the inductive process and have turned thinking and philosophical inquiry into an undertaking that rejects virtually every valid concept known to man. Concepts such as reason, truth and knowledge have been turned into their opposites and the result has been the establishment of a secular nihilist foundation upon which virtually any anti-man concept can be built.

 

David Hume has separated the human mind from reality by means of positing that impressions and ideas are opposed realms and that impressions are more powerful than ideas. This premise creates “out-of-context” thinking and separates man from his intellectual capacity, making knowledge and all decisions a matter of emotional choice. Kant took the foundation provided by Hume, and in an effort to save religion from the Enlightenment, taught that the (collective) mind created reality. This also separated man from reality. Kant went further to claim that morality was represented by an imperative to duty.

 

To understand the full impact of these ideas in our universities, we have to recognize that Hume’s ideas lead to pragmatism which holds that we can’t see the connection between cause and effect and we can only take virtually blind bold leaps in action. As things go, the only kind of action that is usually taken, the safest action, is to help others, to be altruistic. Hume also created the foundation for the many pseudo-sciences that have dominated and decimated human thought and societies for the last couple of decades. Environmentalism is one of those pseudo-sciences.

 

You may think that ideas do not matter; that action is more important than thought and that it is useless to spend time on subjects like philosophy because they have no application to life. That point of view is exactly the point of view of David Hume. In denying the value of philosophy, you have accepted Hume’s philosophy.

 

The key question regarding Hume’s influence is what his ideas amount to in practice and why adhering to them disqualifies you to vote. The most serious consequence that influences your ability to vote is that Hume's philosophy leaves you without a method for understanding reality. It leaves you to depend only upon your emotions when making moral decisions...including political decisions. And because pragmatism defaults to altruism, all political decisions are based on socialist and progressive schemes of government that enslave you to the collective. Literally, the entire culture is mired in altruism to such an extent that many people have no problem using government coercion to solve a myriad of “social” problems. If you accept this blindness, you are not qualified to vote.

 

Marx/Rousseau Axis

 

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a philosopher who coined the term “social contract.” This view of government essentially justified majority rule wherein the minority was charged with accepting any impositions that the majority decided to impose. Rousseau founded his preferred government upon the idea that there was an implicit contract to accept majority rule whenever a person lived in a state. He also held that the will of the majority was somehow infallible and must be accepted as opposed to mere self-interest. Rousseau is very popular among progressives today because his ideas justify forcing the minority (that is often rich and ripe for exploitation) to accept high taxes and expropriation by the government. As the Obama administration is eager to tell us: "We won."

 

Karl Marx is the champion of communism and socialism. Through his development of a mystical “historical process,” Marx invented a political philosophy that was attractive to many who hoped for the legalized nationalization and looting of the products, machines and factories created by capitalists.

 

Marx’s critique of capitalism is considered by many to be accurate. However, it is based on a faulty view of both humanity and the workings of the market system. Capitalism is based on the idea that man, when he engages in free trade uses his reasoning capacity and his ability to choose moral action. On the other hand, Marx thought that capitalists are vicious predators seeking to exploit the workers.

 

But the market system is not a system of exploitation. It is a voluntary association where men are released to act in their own self-interest. In a system of free trade, the only exploitation possible is when the government decides to interfere with free trade (such as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Under communism and socialism, peoples’ work, lives and property are to be expropriated by their government to achieve social goals; and inevitably, these goals require coercion (the result is market dislocations and corruption). In today’s universities, Marxist ideas are taught with little debate and they infest our students with the idea that capitalism is full of evil exploiters and that America is an imperialist country. If you are a Marxist, you are not qualified to vote...pure and simple. This includes many people in the Obama administration who now have the power to run (ruin) capitalism.

 

The current economic crisis (September 2008) is an excellent example of how socialism is a failed system. Contrary to the advocates of dictatorship, this crisis is a failure of socialism, not capitalism. The basic principle of socialism, according to Karl Marx is from each according to his ability to each according to his need; and the two quasi-governmental organizations known as Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were charged specifically with advancing this idea by lowering the standards of mortgage lending to poor people. This means that people who cannot afford to pay for homes are given money to buy homes. The theft takes place when the loans given to these people are then packaged and sold in the private markets to financial institutions as government secured loans. The money from the banks that paid for these loans is then fraudulently stolen by the government from the organizations and private investors who are customers of the financial institutions. None of this has anything to do with capitalism; the principle of the sub-prime mortgage crisis is the same as in a socialist system where the government decides every action that people are allowed to take and determines who gets loans and jobs and money. It is from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

 

The system failed, as does any socialist program, when the actual value of the scheme is seen by the market place and people refuse to buy the loans. The equivalent situation in the Soviet Union would be when people refuse to buy the inferior products of a given company and the company is then subsidized further by the government. This sort of scandalous behavior is being undertaken by our government wholesale and encompasses every government bill being proposed today from Health Care to Card Check to Stimulus Programs to Cap and Trade and many others being forced upon the American citizen by the Obama administration. The end of this can only be collapse of our economy...and starvation.

 

In a free market, loans are made according to the principle of transparency. The borrower must provide proof that he has collateral, income and the ability to pay. Only the government could invalidate this requirement. The government, in this case, said to financial institutions that it is ok to buy these loans because they are backed by the power and authority of the U.S. government. They did this by creating lending regulations and guidelines that were increasingly looser and without transparency. The financial institutions were the victims here, and the peddlers of government pull, who pleaded with the government for the loose regulations, only had to pay campaign contributions (and made low interest loans) to the politicians who looked the other way. It is a travesty and a scandal that those responsible for this (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac executives, Barack Obama, Chis Dodd, Barney Franck and others) are still allowed to walk the halls of Congress. This is a scandal worse than Watergate and every other scandal in our government, yet, no one seeks justice here.

 

If the people in the government are crooks, the principle of socialism presents a perfect opportunity for them to loot financial institutions and make off with huge amounts of money just as does the commissar in the Soviet Union who finds a way to skim money from the company that he is charged with managing. Our current economic crisis is created by socialism and we are suffering from the corruption of socialist bureaucrats who call themselves businessmen. This is not a failure of capitalism. Please note: that this entire scheme was devised by liberals, proposed by liberals, managed by liberals, looted by liberals and then blamed on the free market – for the sake of creating more regulations and creating even more opportunities for looting by liberals.

 

That our media, politicians and talking heads do not scream to high heaven about this scandal and the obvious failure of socialist principles is a testimony to the Marxist and Kantian professors that populate our universities and turn our young people into blind advocates of the most immoral and corrupt system of ideas in history. If you have managed to escape the universities without buying into this web of lies that is called an education, you are an intellectual giant. If you bought into it, you are not intelligent enough to vote.

 

Conclusion

 

As is clear from the above, there is one institution that is seldom questioned in our society and that is altruism. To a great extent, we have established a moral precedence where it does not matter how much a particular goal costs; as long as it involves helping others or helping the poor, cost does not matter. Neither does the real harm being done. Our society will bankrupt itself (morally and financially) by the preponderance of government programs that provide benefits to one group at the expense of others. The result is a caretaker society that runs against sanity.

 

Of course, ours is an age of skepticism and all concepts including freedom and individual rights are under attack by people who don’t hold any principles: the progresive left. The conceptual corruption created by skeptics and mystics in our society has made discussion about a proper society into a naïve activity. If you argue that the principle of property rights should be inviolable, many will shrug as if you are stupid to think in such a pedestrian way. Social planners are busy trying to decide how best to allocate other peoples’ money for the sake of social goals and that is more important to them than such a simplistic idea like individual rights. How did we turn our nation over to these simplistic morons who don't even know that individual rights are the only means to a just society? They do not care that we have lost the fundamental basis of proper society.

 

Yet, it is true that deciding on the proper government is not the responsibility of the average person. When the leaders and intellectuals in a society are corrupted by skepticism, one cannot blame the people for not knowing better. How could the average person know what makes up a proper society when his teachers don’t explain to them what it is, when their idea of a proper society is theft and plunder? When sacrifice is the guiding principle and when most people think that plunder is the only practical way to run a society, can you blame people for voting for the most consistent and corrupt graduates of our universities? It has happened before that the people have taken things into their own hands but we've got to have enough voters to overturn what is probably going to be another "fixed" election; fixed by the universities.

 

Yet, it is the job of the intellectuals and philosophers to properly educate the people and today’s crop has failed miserably – otherwise we would not be arguing about absurd notions like income redistribution.

 

A careful reading of the Constitution will give you a better understanding of what the Founders intended when they established our country. They sought, fundamentally, to restrict government and avoid tyranny. In practice it meant that every citizen was free to think, speak and act as he saw fit – without the possibility of influence from the government. The sum of his rights is what we call individual rights and the government cannot violate the rights enumerated in the Constitution. The government's only mandate is to protect individuals from having their rights violated by anyone including the government. This idea has created what was once the most politically free society in the history of the world - with the consequence that it is also the most affluent society in the history of the world. When people are free to make their own decisions about their lives and property they most often make the correct decisions and the result is a society where people are safe, trusted and successful.

 

Marxists have always argued that capitalism exploits the poor and steals from them for the sake of capitalist factory owners. The solution, for them, is to take the factory away from the capitalist (violate his right to property) and have the government run the company on behalf of the workers, decide who gets hired and fired and how much to put out. This is called central planning where economic decisions are made by planners rather than the free choices of consumers.

 

When a business is no longer profitable because of central planning, the government subsidizes the company and the planners keep making the same decisions that made the company unproductive. Since a central planner has no market-based way of knowing how many products the factory should make, either shortages or overages take place. Shortages mean people are unable to buy what they need and overages mean that products not need are discarded. An entire nation made up of government-owned and managed companies creates corruption and inefficiencies like the oligarchy now found in the Soviet Union. Eventually, the entire stack of cards collapses.

 

We owe it to ourselves to ensure that we do not make a “light” or “frivolous” decision when we vote for important offices. The people who created our society and set its foundations studied philosophy, politics and world history for many years; they debated political and philosophical issues for hours and even fought against a deadly British army for the right to live free of government coercion. It is incumbent on any American of voting age to ensure that he/she has the correct intellectual foundation that is necessary for making a rational choice about the people who will hold power in our country. If you have not made that effort to understand the issues, you should not vote. If you think that theft can be made moral by pulling a lever behind some curtains, you should not vote.

[Mannen med ljåen]

Avstemningen skal være anonym.

 

At du går alene inn i stemmeavlukket er bevis på at ingen tvinger deg til å stemme mot din vilje.

Eventuelle bakmenn blir jo ikke med inn, og kan således ikke se om du faktisk gjorde som de sa.

Det gjelder enten stemmen gis pga. trusler eller betaling. Bakmennene får aldri vite om du stemte som du lovet hvis du går inn i avlukket alene.

 

Hvis stemmen kommer fra stua til Ola Nordmann, vet man aldri om Far stemmer for hele familien, evt. truer kona. Og det kan skje.

 

Dessuten skal en stemme henge litt høyt.

Som andre har nevnt: ingen grunn til at alle skal stemme. Man må jo helst mene noe om valget også.

La avstemningen være akkurat så vanskelig at de som ikke vet noe om politikk ikke påvirker valget med sin dumskap.

 

Ser heller ingen grunn til at ungdommen skal oppfordres til å stemme. De fleste er jo blorøde, lettpåvirkelige kommunist/anarkist/liberalister osv... Et par år senere får de bedre vett og modererer seg litt.