Why can’t we vote online using the voting app? Is it really that hard to protect such a system? I mean, we seem to be able to protect online transactions, okay? If we could do it; Can we? How will this affect the speed of government? Will this change happen too quickly and shake people and the business community? “The only constant is change,” but will this change be a bridge too far, too fast? Let’s talk about it.
Our think tank is working on the concept of online voting through a smartphone and an online app. We believe that this is possible, but there are serious problems to be aware of. Cody Hunt, a think tank, said:
“While online voting reduces the time it takes government members to make decisions on the issues they pose to citizens, I think it would still be good because it would motivate politicians to do so. polls, instead of putting forward an idea, and politicians are turning around because they know they have time to do it when Americans have been discussing it for months. I really like the idea that it will create more jobs. If my job is to think about these problems and how best to address them for the benefit of our society, then work is definitely worth watching. We will still have the same people to help with physical surveys conducted in local high schools, but this app will create a few more jobs for the ammeurs program and for people to make the technology work smoothly. “
All the claims are true, aren’t they? In fact. I see a few more thoughts. I think the real-time voting problems are as follows:
1.) Someone will manipulate the system to cause chaos, such as the manipulation of social networks during the Arab Spring riots in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, etc. or as well as handling an electronic voting machine and hacking software.
2.) If everyone knew that they could vote for free things, they would all vote in favor; Obama’s free phone, free tuition, free medical care, free food stamps, free pies, free BMW, free fuel. So we’d be bankrupt, oh, wouldn’t we? I think we have a republic that will not fall into this trap, as pure democracy can do. In this way, there can be more cautious behavior and better long-term planning than the chaos of the course change on a whim because of the news cycle that Paris Hilton’s dog ate for breakfast or what Kim Kardashian was thinking this week.
And yes, you pointed out another problem: how can we all be “equal before the law” provided in the constitution if some can’t participate because of the “digital divide” – oh, by the way, the FCC has decided that the government should require an $8.25-a-month subsidy (less than $25,000 in annual revenue) to provide Internet access for everyone so that the problem can be resolved. Sample citation: March 8, 2016, article in the Wall Street Journal under the headline; “The FCC’s plan to subsidize network access has been developed,” Cecilia Kang wrote.
What if people voted for leaders who could decide for them, the Republican concept, but these leaders weren’t allowed to borrow money from lobbyists, but vote for smarter options based on viability and budget, not just on the eternal whims of the meaningless masses? Don’t cut or crucify the masses for being human, just to illustrate what most people think little about, but take into account a lot of media that they then assimilate as their own decisions, desires, needs and desires?