Options
John Bercow: Brits should be able to vote for MPs from the comfort of their own home
BRITS should be able to vote online for their MP to bring Parliament into the 21st century, Commons Speaker John Bercow has said.
He declared that people should be allowed to cast their vote from the comfort of their own homes to save them trekking to the polling station “on a wet Thursday”.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5682957/Bercow-Brits-should-be-able-to-vote-online.html
He's right, I agree with him.
People do their secure banking etc online.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say it would be less open to abuse, than postal voting or just turning up at a station and giving your name.
He declared that people should be allowed to cast their vote from the comfort of their own homes to save them trekking to the polling station “on a wet Thursday”.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5682957/Bercow-Brits-should-be-able-to-vote-online.html
He's right, I agree with him.
People do their secure banking etc online.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say it would be less open to abuse, than postal voting or just turning up at a station and giving your name.
0
Comments
There will need to be safe guards to prevent fraud, though.
So I assume you know how much this would cost and you did a cost \ benefit analysis before coming to your conclusion.
Care to share your figures with us ?
I assume you do?
I very much agree with it in principle.
After you ............
EDIT: I see you edited your reply after I had replied. Your edited reply is much better in my opinion
Ain't that the truth. I'm not sure I would trust either party with a large scale IT project again.
After me what? Your not making any sense.
I fully agree with this in principle, which part of that do you not understand?
Jol, you edited your post. And so I have edited my post in response. OK ?
Yet it's seen as safe enough for banking?
Asking someone for a full cost/benefit analysis in response to them voicing agreement in principle with a proposal for electronic voting from home, comes across as a little unreasonable.
But my bank has changed its online banking system three times and is about to change it again and all for security reasons.
I posted that to his original post where he gave unequivocal support not to his edited post where he gave support in principle so it wasn't unreasonable at all I hope you are able to agree
This is how One DIrection win awards.
Harry Styles for Prime Minister !
How much would it cost government to put in the same level of security that exists for banking across the whole country for a vote every couple of years?
What is the cost of democracy? Does it have a price?
Well if cost is no object why not pay people to vote, that should increase turnout.
Afterall we only have a £1.4 trillion national debt, nothing to worry about apparently
Look at the US. They have the best democracy money can buy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19052054
I can't tell if the OP had been edited. It seems a tad* optimistic on the notions that electronic voting would be better than paper voting, and an explanation of grounds for those beliefs might not go amiss; but I don't see the need for a "cost/benefit analysis" (which, to me, means "a rather weighty and formal report") to justify that position. It's not exactly a normal demand to make of someone to support their position, so it was somewhat surprising to see that in your response.
Anyway, I'm in danger of unintentionally making a bigger deal out of this than it is, so please accept my apologies for the derail.
* "In space terms, that's about half a million miles."