<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_0136211</id>
	<title>Canada Considering Online Voting In Elections</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246201020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.flyinglow.ca/" rel="nofollow">ehud42</a> writes <i>"Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad idea. Well, <a href="http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Online+voting+could+improve+dwindling+turnout+federal+elections+report/1740238/story.html">what about online voting</a>? That is what the Vancouver Sun is reporting. Given that voter turnout in our most recent election was the <a href="http://www.elections.ca/loi/res/40eval/evaluation\_e.pdf">worst on record</a>, <a href="http://www.elections.ca/home.asp">Elections Canada</a> is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online, update registration information online, and maybe even vote online."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ehud42 writes " Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad idea .
Well , what about online voting ?
That is what the Vancouver Sun is reporting .
Given that voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record , Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online , update registration information online , and maybe even vote online .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ehud42 writes "Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad idea.
Well, what about online voting?
That is what the Vancouver Sun is reporting.
Given that voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record, Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online, update registration information online, and maybe even vote online.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500923</id>
	<title>In case you don't know</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1246123380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canadian voting machines currently come in two types:  "Number 2" and "HB".  There has been some talk about how "Number 2" style voting machines producing inaccurate results, but nobody has been able to prove that yet.
</p><p>Canadian elections are a very simple matter.  Voters head off to their local polling station, usually a school or community centre, request a ballot or ballots from the elections officer who is usually accompanied by an observer from each of the major parties trying to make sure that nothing unusual happens, and then heads off to a simple wooden desk with a big cardboard screen on it.  The voter marks a big 'X' in the circle located next to the appropriate candidate or referendum answer and then folds up the ballots and slips them into the big cardboard box next to the officer and observers.
</p><p>That's it.  No butterfly ballots, no hanging chads, no touch screens, no voting on what kind of potatoes should be served in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill and what they should be called, just one vote for your local representative and possibly a referendum question which is actually important.  Ballots are counted by hand and the results released later that evening after all of the polls close.
</p><p>Why mess around with a system that works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canadian voting machines currently come in two types : " Number 2 " and " HB " .
There has been some talk about how " Number 2 " style voting machines producing inaccurate results , but nobody has been able to prove that yet .
Canadian elections are a very simple matter .
Voters head off to their local polling station , usually a school or community centre , request a ballot or ballots from the elections officer who is usually accompanied by an observer from each of the major parties trying to make sure that nothing unusual happens , and then heads off to a simple wooden desk with a big cardboard screen on it .
The voter marks a big 'X ' in the circle located next to the appropriate candidate or referendum answer and then folds up the ballots and slips them into the big cardboard box next to the officer and observers .
That 's it .
No butterfly ballots , no hanging chads , no touch screens , no voting on what kind of potatoes should be served in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill and what they should be called , just one vote for your local representative and possibly a referendum question which is actually important .
Ballots are counted by hand and the results released later that evening after all of the polls close .
Why mess around with a system that works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canadian voting machines currently come in two types:  "Number 2" and "HB".
There has been some talk about how "Number 2" style voting machines producing inaccurate results, but nobody has been able to prove that yet.
Canadian elections are a very simple matter.
Voters head off to their local polling station, usually a school or community centre, request a ballot or ballots from the elections officer who is usually accompanied by an observer from each of the major parties trying to make sure that nothing unusual happens, and then heads off to a simple wooden desk with a big cardboard screen on it.
The voter marks a big 'X' in the circle located next to the appropriate candidate or referendum answer and then folds up the ballots and slips them into the big cardboard box next to the officer and observers.
That's it.
No butterfly ballots, no hanging chads, no touch screens, no voting on what kind of potatoes should be served in the cafeteria on Capitol Hill and what they should be called, just one vote for your local representative and possibly a referendum question which is actually important.
Ballots are counted by hand and the results released later that evening after all of the polls close.
Why mess around with a system that works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503721</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246203600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess this proves that the Internet is still a great medium to make overreaching assumptions. And everyone knows what's said of assumptions...
<br> <br>
There are plenty of fallacies in your logic that fail to address why online voting might be a bad idea. Your paradigm implicates that for the sake of preserving "democracy," those "read" enough to "understand" foreign and domestic policy and such should be the only citizens eligible to vote. Here's the big issue: how much does one have to be "read" to "understand" the political agendas of the electorate? Good political candidates ensure that their policies and promises are phrased so that <i>everyone</i>, even the "lazy and stupid," can understand them. Furthermore, the propaganda in presidential elections is covered by so many media sources, that one has to be living under a rock or actively not be paying attention to miss them. That's not a problem, since that populace usually doesn't vote anyway.
<br> <br>
One huge tenet in a democracy is to give <b>everybody</b> the right to vote. While I agree that the voting population will have an imbalance in knowledge of current events, that, by no means, should translate into giving suffrage only to those who "understand the issues" (enough to cross your bar of understanding, of course).
<br> <br>
There are <b>lots</b> of great reasons why online voting would be an ideal <b>component</b> to elections. Benefits to the working population, the disabled and those distanced too far from a polling booth are a few that come to mind. There are also many more critical reasons why online voting needs significant work before getting prime time, with the main one being the security of voter integrity and confidentiality.
<br> <br>
Your ideologies are not one of those reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess this proves that the Internet is still a great medium to make overreaching assumptions .
And everyone knows what 's said of assumptions.. . There are plenty of fallacies in your logic that fail to address why online voting might be a bad idea .
Your paradigm implicates that for the sake of preserving " democracy , " those " read " enough to " understand " foreign and domestic policy and such should be the only citizens eligible to vote .
Here 's the big issue : how much does one have to be " read " to " understand " the political agendas of the electorate ?
Good political candidates ensure that their policies and promises are phrased so that everyone , even the " lazy and stupid , " can understand them .
Furthermore , the propaganda in presidential elections is covered by so many media sources , that one has to be living under a rock or actively not be paying attention to miss them .
That 's not a problem , since that populace usually does n't vote anyway .
One huge tenet in a democracy is to give everybody the right to vote .
While I agree that the voting population will have an imbalance in knowledge of current events , that , by no means , should translate into giving suffrage only to those who " understand the issues " ( enough to cross your bar of understanding , of course ) .
There are lots of great reasons why online voting would be an ideal component to elections .
Benefits to the working population , the disabled and those distanced too far from a polling booth are a few that come to mind .
There are also many more critical reasons why online voting needs significant work before getting prime time , with the main one being the security of voter integrity and confidentiality .
Your ideologies are not one of those reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess this proves that the Internet is still a great medium to make overreaching assumptions.
And everyone knows what's said of assumptions...
 
There are plenty of fallacies in your logic that fail to address why online voting might be a bad idea.
Your paradigm implicates that for the sake of preserving "democracy," those "read" enough to "understand" foreign and domestic policy and such should be the only citizens eligible to vote.
Here's the big issue: how much does one have to be "read" to "understand" the political agendas of the electorate?
Good political candidates ensure that their policies and promises are phrased so that everyone, even the "lazy and stupid," can understand them.
Furthermore, the propaganda in presidential elections is covered by so many media sources, that one has to be living under a rock or actively not be paying attention to miss them.
That's not a problem, since that populace usually doesn't vote anyway.
One huge tenet in a democracy is to give everybody the right to vote.
While I agree that the voting population will have an imbalance in knowledge of current events, that, by no means, should translate into giving suffrage only to those who "understand the issues" (enough to cross your bar of understanding, of course).
There are lots of great reasons why online voting would be an ideal component to elections.
Benefits to the working population, the disabled and those distanced too far from a polling booth are a few that come to mind.
There are also many more critical reasons why online voting needs significant work before getting prime time, with the main one being the security of voter integrity and confidentiality.
Your ideologies are not one of those reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501183</id>
	<title>Re:As a Non-Canadian...</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1246125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just asking... How about a "None of the above" vote..  That can win.</p><p>If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates. The process continues until someone is voted in.</p><p>Oh and online voting in America - DO NOT WANT EITHER.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just asking... How about a " None of the above " vote.. That can win.If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates .
The process continues until someone is voted in.Oh and online voting in America - DO NOT WANT EITHER .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just asking... How about a "None of the above" vote..  That can win.If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates.
The process continues until someone is voted in.Oh and online voting in America - DO NOT WANT EITHER.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28507117</id>
	<title>Re:When computers are granted suffrage</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1246185000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I don't know any way to secure an electronic election</i> </p><p>Nobody does. The literature is clear on this. Just a few of the many problems:</p><ul>
<li>Confidentiality: the voter must be identified but the vote must be anonymous</li><li>Integrity: How do you do a recount?</li><li>Less Integrity: If I control a router between the server and a district that votes solidly against my party, how many votes can I redirect to a bit bucket without raising suspicions? </li><li>Availability: What if I DoS the most popular ISP in such a district?</li></ul><p>Get all of these and we have a few dozen more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know any way to secure an electronic election Nobody does .
The literature is clear on this .
Just a few of the many problems : Confidentiality : the voter must be identified but the vote must be anonymousIntegrity : How do you do a recount ? Less Integrity : If I control a router between the server and a district that votes solidly against my party , how many votes can I redirect to a bit bucket without raising suspicions ?
Availability : What if I DoS the most popular ISP in such a district ? Get all of these and we have a few dozen more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't know any way to secure an electronic election Nobody does.
The literature is clear on this.
Just a few of the many problems:
Confidentiality: the voter must be identified but the vote must be anonymousIntegrity: How do you do a recount?Less Integrity: If I control a router between the server and a district that votes solidly against my party, how many votes can I redirect to a bit bucket without raising suspicions?
Availability: What if I DoS the most popular ISP in such a district?Get all of these and we have a few dozen more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508027</id>
	<title>Re:Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1246192500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of my family and friends complain about the compulsory voting in Australia, but I tend to agree with the notion. I think everyone needs to take a stand on how things are run; yes, like in Canada, the options are not always compelling, but there is still an option.</p><p>Also, I find it strange that in Canada you can't vote for an "individual" but have to vote for a party. In Australian (even local council) election, each ballot paper has two options: above the line=vote for one party only and below the line=vote for an individual by preference.<br>For lower house I usually vote for party even though the candidate options are quite small, but for Senate voting, I usually vote below the line (out of a choice of about 50+). I usually start with the least wanted candidates and then move up.</p><p>Now, back on topic: Electronic voting without a paper trail is wrong, but paper voting in australia (a country of 20 million people) is quite efficient. We know the results of an election by midnight usually (except for close seats) which is only a 6 hour gap. I can't see Canada being so different, so why the rush to electronic voting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of my family and friends complain about the compulsory voting in Australia , but I tend to agree with the notion .
I think everyone needs to take a stand on how things are run ; yes , like in Canada , the options are not always compelling , but there is still an option.Also , I find it strange that in Canada you ca n't vote for an " individual " but have to vote for a party .
In Australian ( even local council ) election , each ballot paper has two options : above the line = vote for one party only and below the line = vote for an individual by preference.For lower house I usually vote for party even though the candidate options are quite small , but for Senate voting , I usually vote below the line ( out of a choice of about 50 + ) .
I usually start with the least wanted candidates and then move up.Now , back on topic : Electronic voting without a paper trail is wrong , but paper voting in australia ( a country of 20 million people ) is quite efficient .
We know the results of an election by midnight usually ( except for close seats ) which is only a 6 hour gap .
I ca n't see Canada being so different , so why the rush to electronic voting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of my family and friends complain about the compulsory voting in Australia, but I tend to agree with the notion.
I think everyone needs to take a stand on how things are run; yes, like in Canada, the options are not always compelling, but there is still an option.Also, I find it strange that in Canada you can't vote for an "individual" but have to vote for a party.
In Australian (even local council) election, each ballot paper has two options: above the line=vote for one party only and below the line=vote for an individual by preference.For lower house I usually vote for party even though the candidate options are quite small, but for Senate voting, I usually vote below the line (out of a choice of about 50+).
I usually start with the least wanted candidates and then move up.Now, back on topic: Electronic voting without a paper trail is wrong, but paper voting in australia (a country of 20 million people) is quite efficient.
We know the results of an election by midnight usually (except for close seats) which is only a 6 hour gap.
I can't see Canada being so different, so why the rush to electronic voting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502963</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.  It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.  Even online voting.</p><p>It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.  But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.</p></div><p>No it's not. See WOTE'06,'07,'09, FEE'05, DIMACS, VoteID, see an overwhelming amount of theses from Josh Benaloh (and probably before) via Martin Hirth, Ben Adida, Wolter Pieters, Tal Moran, Zhe Xia and god knows how many others. See the evoting papers at CSF, Crypto, S&amp;P, EuroCrypt, AsiaCrypt, etc.<br>The interesting thing about voting: it's highly interdisciplinary. You have to balance security with accessibility, usability, legal requirements. And <b>each</b> of these categories can damn a system (e.g. lack of privacy, accessibity, unusable, not compliant with law).</p><p>The problem with evoting: it scales well. Attacks on the system also scale well. Very well. And let me tell you, not only are we still investigating the best responses to various known problems, there is also no guarantee that we have discovered all problems/attacks. Given the experiences of current paper-based systems, no matter what the rules are, someone will seek to game them for his own profit. And if you can game the system, evoting makes it easy to escalate the game to a higher order.</p><p>Evoting is not easy, and currently, evoting is only a viable alternative for remote voting. Not for elections that have voting booths.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy .
It really is , it 's a damn simple problem to solve .
Even online voting.It 's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor , and there should be a lesson in there for us .
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.No it 's not .
See WOTE'06,'07,'09 , FEE'05 , DIMACS , VoteID , see an overwhelming amount of theses from Josh Benaloh ( and probably before ) via Martin Hirth , Ben Adida , Wolter Pieters , Tal Moran , Zhe Xia and god knows how many others .
See the evoting papers at CSF , Crypto , S&amp;P , EuroCrypt , AsiaCrypt , etc.The interesting thing about voting : it 's highly interdisciplinary .
You have to balance security with accessibility , usability , legal requirements .
And each of these categories can damn a system ( e.g .
lack of privacy , accessibity , unusable , not compliant with law ) .The problem with evoting : it scales well .
Attacks on the system also scale well .
Very well .
And let me tell you , not only are we still investigating the best responses to various known problems , there is also no guarantee that we have discovered all problems/attacks .
Given the experiences of current paper-based systems , no matter what the rules are , someone will seek to game them for his own profit .
And if you can game the system , evoting makes it easy to escalate the game to a higher order.Evoting is not easy , and currently , evoting is only a viable alternative for remote voting .
Not for elections that have voting booths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.
It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.
Even online voting.It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.No it's not.
See WOTE'06,'07,'09, FEE'05, DIMACS, VoteID, see an overwhelming amount of theses from Josh Benaloh (and probably before) via Martin Hirth, Ben Adida, Wolter Pieters, Tal Moran, Zhe Xia and god knows how many others.
See the evoting papers at CSF, Crypto, S&amp;P, EuroCrypt, AsiaCrypt, etc.The interesting thing about voting: it's highly interdisciplinary.
You have to balance security with accessibility, usability, legal requirements.
And each of these categories can damn a system (e.g.
lack of privacy, accessibity, unusable, not compliant with law).The problem with evoting: it scales well.
Attacks on the system also scale well.
Very well.
And let me tell you, not only are we still investigating the best responses to various known problems, there is also no guarantee that we have discovered all problems/attacks.
Given the experiences of current paper-based systems, no matter what the rules are, someone will seek to game them for his own profit.
And if you can game the system, evoting makes it easy to escalate the game to a higher order.Evoting is not easy, and currently, evoting is only a viable alternative for remote voting.
Not for elections that have voting booths.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503759</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246204080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, if you dig a couple of minutes into it, you'll find that it's most definitely not. There are protocols innovated for this kind of stuff.
<br> <br>
If it were easy, it would have been done already!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , if you dig a couple of minutes into it , you 'll find that it 's most definitely not .
There are protocols innovated for this kind of stuff .
If it were easy , it would have been done already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, if you dig a couple of minutes into it, you'll find that it's most definitely not.
There are protocols innovated for this kind of stuff.
If it were easy, it would have been done already!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500481</id>
	<title>other possibilities arise</title>
	<author>drDugan</author>
	<datestamp>1246119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while in general this seems like a poor idea, for many reasons that will be posted by others, by pushing<br>forward a good online voting system, many other benefits could arise, such as:</p><p>- longer voting periods than one day - like a week or even a month to lock in a vote</p><p>- verification that your real vote has been received and counted while voting is still possible,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; possibly reducing some voter fraud types</p><p>- different voting methods than the simple, single vote, winner take all</p><p>- better support for various languages</p><p>- increased interest and participation by younger, more Internet savvy voters</p><p>- state developing and using strong cryptographic system for ensuring privacy and security of votes</p><p>- better, more frequent accounting of population</p><p>- increased social support for secure Internet systems and Internet access</p><p>- new open source, open standard systems for secure electronic voting</p><p>- Increased delivery and accountability of government services via the Internet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while in general this seems like a poor idea , for many reasons that will be posted by others , by pushingforward a good online voting system , many other benefits could arise , such as : - longer voting periods than one day - like a week or even a month to lock in a vote- verification that your real vote has been received and counted while voting is still possible ,     possibly reducing some voter fraud types- different voting methods than the simple , single vote , winner take all- better support for various languages- increased interest and participation by younger , more Internet savvy voters- state developing and using strong cryptographic system for ensuring privacy and security of votes- better , more frequent accounting of population- increased social support for secure Internet systems and Internet access- new open source , open standard systems for secure electronic voting- Increased delivery and accountability of government services via the Internet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while in general this seems like a poor idea, for many reasons that will be posted by others, by pushingforward a good online voting system, many other benefits could arise, such as:- longer voting periods than one day - like a week or even a month to lock in a vote- verification that your real vote has been received and counted while voting is still possible,
    possibly reducing some voter fraud types- different voting methods than the simple, single vote, winner take all- better support for various languages- increased interest and participation by younger, more Internet savvy voters- state developing and using strong cryptographic system for ensuring privacy and security of votes- better, more frequent accounting of population- increased social support for secure Internet systems and Internet access- new open source, open standard systems for secure electronic voting- Increased delivery and accountability of government services via the Internet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500947</id>
	<title>Anybody up for re-election....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine would be in favor of online voting for some reason....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine would be in favor of online voting for some reason... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine would be in favor of online voting for some reason....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505687</id>
	<title>Re:Not a horrible idea...</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1246216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We actually have the same system as the UK, we're just lucky enough to currently have 4 major parties getting seats in parliament leading to minority governments. Still locally it is usually only 2 viable candidates.<br>I agree with you about the choices coming down to choose your scum. Which leads to low voter turnout.<br>I usually end up protest voting for the joke party or recently the marijuana party</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We actually have the same system as the UK , we 're just lucky enough to currently have 4 major parties getting seats in parliament leading to minority governments .
Still locally it is usually only 2 viable candidates.I agree with you about the choices coming down to choose your scum .
Which leads to low voter turnout.I usually end up protest voting for the joke party or recently the marijuana party</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We actually have the same system as the UK, we're just lucky enough to currently have 4 major parties getting seats in parliament leading to minority governments.
Still locally it is usually only 2 viable candidates.I agree with you about the choices coming down to choose your scum.
Which leads to low voter turnout.I usually end up protest voting for the joke party or recently the marijuana party</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500619</id>
	<title>We already have a proven online model</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1246120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Online finances have proven to work. Treat voting with the same level of security and attention, and you've got a winner in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Online finances have proven to work .
Treat voting with the same level of security and attention , and you 've got a winner in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online finances have proven to work.
Treat voting with the same level of security and attention, and you've got a winner in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500773</id>
	<title>OK you're on</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246121940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ultimate challenge, NOT an easy problem to solve:</p><p>Design a vote-from-home system which is guaranteed to preserve anonymity and guaranteed to be tamper-evident against fraud.  You are not required to account for failures in ballot delivery to or from the voter i.e. internet failure, other than to realize when an attempted delivery failed or at least that a ballot sent out was not received.</p><p>Real-world challenge, actually 3 challenges, may be very doable:</p><p>Design a vote-from-home system that has similar characteristics as the most secure voting system known to man, where "secure" is defined as:</p><p>*Challenge #1) the best preservation of anonymity known to man, i.e. best protection against intimidation/loss of privacy.  This is not too hard.<br>*Challenge #2) the best protection against ballot-tampering known to man, i.e. best fraud protection of the actual vote.  This is easy.<br>*Challenge #3, actually a whole range of challenges of varying difficulty) for a given voting district, create a system that is at least as anonymity-preserving and at least as tamper-protected as the current system used by the majority or plurality of their voters.</p><p>In other words, if I'm in some county in Idaho and I am looking to buy your system, and a majority of my voters vote at the ballot box on voting day using optical-scan cards and certain protocols to prevent tampering and prevent anonymity leakage, I expect your system to be at least as good as protecting anonymity and protecting the integrity of the count as the system I have now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimate challenge , NOT an easy problem to solve : Design a vote-from-home system which is guaranteed to preserve anonymity and guaranteed to be tamper-evident against fraud .
You are not required to account for failures in ballot delivery to or from the voter i.e .
internet failure , other than to realize when an attempted delivery failed or at least that a ballot sent out was not received.Real-world challenge , actually 3 challenges , may be very doable : Design a vote-from-home system that has similar characteristics as the most secure voting system known to man , where " secure " is defined as : * Challenge # 1 ) the best preservation of anonymity known to man , i.e .
best protection against intimidation/loss of privacy .
This is not too hard .
* Challenge # 2 ) the best protection against ballot-tampering known to man , i.e .
best fraud protection of the actual vote .
This is easy .
* Challenge # 3 , actually a whole range of challenges of varying difficulty ) for a given voting district , create a system that is at least as anonymity-preserving and at least as tamper-protected as the current system used by the majority or plurality of their voters.In other words , if I 'm in some county in Idaho and I am looking to buy your system , and a majority of my voters vote at the ballot box on voting day using optical-scan cards and certain protocols to prevent tampering and prevent anonymity leakage , I expect your system to be at least as good as protecting anonymity and protecting the integrity of the count as the system I have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimate challenge, NOT an easy problem to solve:Design a vote-from-home system which is guaranteed to preserve anonymity and guaranteed to be tamper-evident against fraud.
You are not required to account for failures in ballot delivery to or from the voter i.e.
internet failure, other than to realize when an attempted delivery failed or at least that a ballot sent out was not received.Real-world challenge, actually 3 challenges, may be very doable:Design a vote-from-home system that has similar characteristics as the most secure voting system known to man, where "secure" is defined as:*Challenge #1) the best preservation of anonymity known to man, i.e.
best protection against intimidation/loss of privacy.
This is not too hard.
*Challenge #2) the best protection against ballot-tampering known to man, i.e.
best fraud protection of the actual vote.
This is easy.
*Challenge #3, actually a whole range of challenges of varying difficulty) for a given voting district, create a system that is at least as anonymity-preserving and at least as tamper-protected as the current system used by the majority or plurality of their voters.In other words, if I'm in some county in Idaho and I am looking to buy your system, and a majority of my voters vote at the ballot box on voting day using optical-scan cards and certain protocols to prevent tampering and prevent anonymity leakage, I expect your system to be at least as good as protecting anonymity and protecting the integrity of the count as the system I have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500865</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246122780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past: politicians would help organize transportation from the local nursing home to their polling place if they thought that the elderly residents would vote for them</p><p>Now: volunteers will help sign them up for absentee voting... they'll even help your half-blind 90yr old grandma with Alzheimer's vote for the "correct" candidate.</p><p>I agree with QuoteMstr.  Absentee voting should be restricted to only people who actually have a reason they cannot physically be present at the polls on election day.  That way everybody has the opportunity to participate but the absentee's are kept to a small enough percentage of the electorate that they aren't a worthwhile target for fraud or coercion.</p><p>All of these "improvements" are based on the premise that we need to make voting more convenient because increasing participation is important.  NO IT IS NOT.  Participation naturally goes up and down depending on how excited people are about an election (witness the increased turnout in the US for 2008)</p><p>The Canadian election in question is just one that nobody outside of the political class seemed to care about.  The two realistic PM contenders nobody much cared about.. Harper is adored among the Conservative base, but most others seem to have a mild antipathy; the Liberal leader at the time (Dion) didn't seem to be liked by anybody.  (Kind of a shame since he's actually a really bright guy.. but being the face behind the Clarity Act had probably doomed his popularity forever in Quebec and his mediocre English reduced his appeal everywhere else)  Really  everybody just assumed that the turnout was going to be unimpressive, and it was.</p><p>If either party produces a dynamic leader that people are excited about (a new Trudeau, basically) or there is a big issue that divides the Conservative and Liberal positions then you'll see a high turn-out election in no time.  Measures to try to increase turn-out simply for the sake of increasing turn-out are pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past : politicians would help organize transportation from the local nursing home to their polling place if they thought that the elderly residents would vote for themNow : volunteers will help sign them up for absentee voting... they 'll even help your half-blind 90yr old grandma with Alzheimer 's vote for the " correct " candidate.I agree with QuoteMstr .
Absentee voting should be restricted to only people who actually have a reason they can not physically be present at the polls on election day .
That way everybody has the opportunity to participate but the absentee 's are kept to a small enough percentage of the electorate that they are n't a worthwhile target for fraud or coercion.All of these " improvements " are based on the premise that we need to make voting more convenient because increasing participation is important .
NO IT IS NOT .
Participation naturally goes up and down depending on how excited people are about an election ( witness the increased turnout in the US for 2008 ) The Canadian election in question is just one that nobody outside of the political class seemed to care about .
The two realistic PM contenders nobody much cared about.. Harper is adored among the Conservative base , but most others seem to have a mild antipathy ; the Liberal leader at the time ( Dion ) did n't seem to be liked by anybody .
( Kind of a shame since he 's actually a really bright guy.. but being the face behind the Clarity Act had probably doomed his popularity forever in Quebec and his mediocre English reduced his appeal everywhere else ) Really everybody just assumed that the turnout was going to be unimpressive , and it was.If either party produces a dynamic leader that people are excited about ( a new Trudeau , basically ) or there is a big issue that divides the Conservative and Liberal positions then you 'll see a high turn-out election in no time .
Measures to try to increase turn-out simply for the sake of increasing turn-out are pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past: politicians would help organize transportation from the local nursing home to their polling place if they thought that the elderly residents would vote for themNow: volunteers will help sign them up for absentee voting... they'll even help your half-blind 90yr old grandma with Alzheimer's vote for the "correct" candidate.I agree with QuoteMstr.
Absentee voting should be restricted to only people who actually have a reason they cannot physically be present at the polls on election day.
That way everybody has the opportunity to participate but the absentee's are kept to a small enough percentage of the electorate that they aren't a worthwhile target for fraud or coercion.All of these "improvements" are based on the premise that we need to make voting more convenient because increasing participation is important.
NO IT IS NOT.
Participation naturally goes up and down depending on how excited people are about an election (witness the increased turnout in the US for 2008)The Canadian election in question is just one that nobody outside of the political class seemed to care about.
The two realistic PM contenders nobody much cared about.. Harper is adored among the Conservative base, but most others seem to have a mild antipathy; the Liberal leader at the time (Dion) didn't seem to be liked by anybody.
(Kind of a shame since he's actually a really bright guy.. but being the face behind the Clarity Act had probably doomed his popularity forever in Quebec and his mediocre English reduced his appeal everywhere else)  Really  everybody just assumed that the turnout was going to be unimpressive, and it was.If either party produces a dynamic leader that people are excited about (a new Trudeau, basically) or there is a big issue that divides the Conservative and Liberal positions then you'll see a high turn-out election in no time.
Measures to try to increase turn-out simply for the sake of increasing turn-out are pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503189</id>
	<title>Re:Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>ElitistWhiner</author>
	<datestamp>1246199220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vote online fixes the real problem!!!</p><p>Disenfranchisement or the stealing of an election by suppressing the people's right to vote is a real problem.</p><p>Here in California less than 1M voter's vote-count takes control of the 4th largest economy in the world, the Governorship.  If the number of voters can be suppressed by running an exhausting number of polls - the cost to gain political control is fixed at a much lower price.</p><p>Electronic polling offers at a much lower threshold the ease of voter participation and exercise of citizen's political power.   Voting online has security problems exactly like voting any other way but it does fix the very real problem of ease of use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vote online fixes the real problem ! !
! Disenfranchisement or the stealing of an election by suppressing the people 's right to vote is a real problem.Here in California less than 1M voter 's vote-count takes control of the 4th largest economy in the world , the Governorship .
If the number of voters can be suppressed by running an exhausting number of polls - the cost to gain political control is fixed at a much lower price.Electronic polling offers at a much lower threshold the ease of voter participation and exercise of citizen 's political power .
Voting online has security problems exactly like voting any other way but it does fix the very real problem of ease of use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vote online fixes the real problem!!
!Disenfranchisement or the stealing of an election by suppressing the people's right to vote is a real problem.Here in California less than 1M voter's vote-count takes control of the 4th largest economy in the world, the Governorship.
If the number of voters can be suppressed by running an exhausting number of polls - the cost to gain political control is fixed at a much lower price.Electronic polling offers at a much lower threshold the ease of voter participation and exercise of citizen's political power.
Voting online has security problems exactly like voting any other way but it does fix the very real problem of ease of use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500511</id>
	<title>Electronic Voting: Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electronic candidates, on the other hand, might be an improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electronic candidates , on the other hand , might be an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electronic candidates, on the other hand, might be an improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513293</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1246286460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised at the reaction.  On<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. I would expect the discussion to be on how to make it work, not mostly, "this is a bad idea."</p><p>How do you coerce a significant number of votes?</p><p>Yes, I can coerce one vote, or one household's votes, but how can I get to enough houses to do any good.</p><p>This could be even further eliminated by setting up the system so that if you vote twice, the second one appears just like the first, but is not counted.  Vote early in the day, and the coercer comes by and you pretend to vote a second time for him, it appears normal, but it goes to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null</p><p>The interception/trojan problem is more serious.</p><p>To me this means we have to have dual channel communication.</p><p>E.g. You submit a vote online, but you receive a confirming message back via text message, or by snail mailed letter, or by email to a web based account that you can check with another computer.  This makes reliable operation of data interception difficult.</p><p>It does not have to be a revelation of how you voted.<br>E.g. Take the voter's registered name, his ballot number concatenate the people he voted for on it, and hash the string.</p><p>Give people a choice of whether to have the 'clear text' ballot sent to them in addition to the hash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised at the reaction .
On / .
I would expect the discussion to be on how to make it work , not mostly , " this is a bad idea .
" How do you coerce a significant number of votes ? Yes , I can coerce one vote , or one household 's votes , but how can I get to enough houses to do any good.This could be even further eliminated by setting up the system so that if you vote twice , the second one appears just like the first , but is not counted .
Vote early in the day , and the coercer comes by and you pretend to vote a second time for him , it appears normal , but it goes to /dev/nullThe interception/trojan problem is more serious.To me this means we have to have dual channel communication.E.g .
You submit a vote online , but you receive a confirming message back via text message , or by snail mailed letter , or by email to a web based account that you can check with another computer .
This makes reliable operation of data interception difficult.It does not have to be a revelation of how you voted.E.g .
Take the voter 's registered name , his ballot number concatenate the people he voted for on it , and hash the string.Give people a choice of whether to have the 'clear text ' ballot sent to them in addition to the hash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised at the reaction.
On /.
I would expect the discussion to be on how to make it work, not mostly, "this is a bad idea.
"How do you coerce a significant number of votes?Yes, I can coerce one vote, or one household's votes, but how can I get to enough houses to do any good.This could be even further eliminated by setting up the system so that if you vote twice, the second one appears just like the first, but is not counted.
Vote early in the day, and the coercer comes by and you pretend to vote a second time for him, it appears normal, but it goes to /dev/nullThe interception/trojan problem is more serious.To me this means we have to have dual channel communication.E.g.
You submit a vote online, but you receive a confirming message back via text message, or by snail mailed letter, or by email to a web based account that you can check with another computer.
This makes reliable operation of data interception difficult.It does not have to be a revelation of how you voted.E.g.
Take the voter's registered name, his ballot number concatenate the people he voted for on it, and hash the string.Give people a choice of whether to have the 'clear text' ballot sent to them in addition to the hash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501743</id>
	<title>Canada should go with Diebold</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1246220340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Canada Considering Online Voting In Elections</p><p>"And the winner is.... The Republic Party.... LOLWOT?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Canada Considering Online Voting In Elections " And the winner is.... The Republic Party... .
LOLWOT ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Canada Considering Online Voting In Elections"And the winner is.... The Republic Party....
LOLWOT?"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503537</id>
	<title>&#226;oeeventually&#226; it is what we will all us</title>
	<author>carl.net</author>
	<datestamp>1246201980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As one of the few people on this site who has actually created an internet based voting and registration system (mine was for the US government) I have a few opinions based on my experience.  First, online voting has already been tried by a number of countries, including the UK (the island didn&#226;(TM)t sink afterward), and found to not increase voter turnout.  So if their goal is to increase voter turnout they might want to consider encouraging candidates who the populace finds interesting rather than trying a technology fix.  Second, most paper or mechanical based systems are so broken that theoretically internet voting should be better.  In practice the broken parts of the current systems are codified in law and so the Internet equivalent systems end up being as bad or worse than the paper/mechanical systems.</p><p>Once again based on experience here is what is required for this to work:</p><p>1. Laws in the country that actually support building effective secure systems<br>2. Visibility into the process of building the system and open code review (notice I did not specify open source though it is a possibility)<br>3. A national ID with a machine readable electronic identifier built into the ID<br>4. A willingness by the populace to use the system<br>5. A number of test runs of the system where voting is done on a topic that is interesting but will not affect the operation of the government<br>6. A secure platform to do the voting over (aka your pc is not secure and this by the way is most difficult part)<br>7. A long voting period so that DOS attacks cannot completely disable the system</p><p>So there are actually a bunch more things that need to be considered but this list will get you a long way down the road.  And yes Internet based voting will eventually win out even with all of its detractors and problems.  So cheers to Canada for giving it a go!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of the few people on this site who has actually created an internet based voting and registration system ( mine was for the US government ) I have a few opinions based on my experience .
First , online voting has already been tried by a number of countries , including the UK ( the island didn   ( TM ) t sink afterward ) , and found to not increase voter turnout .
So if their goal is to increase voter turnout they might want to consider encouraging candidates who the populace finds interesting rather than trying a technology fix .
Second , most paper or mechanical based systems are so broken that theoretically internet voting should be better .
In practice the broken parts of the current systems are codified in law and so the Internet equivalent systems end up being as bad or worse than the paper/mechanical systems.Once again based on experience here is what is required for this to work : 1 .
Laws in the country that actually support building effective secure systems2 .
Visibility into the process of building the system and open code review ( notice I did not specify open source though it is a possibility ) 3 .
A national ID with a machine readable electronic identifier built into the ID4 .
A willingness by the populace to use the system5 .
A number of test runs of the system where voting is done on a topic that is interesting but will not affect the operation of the government6 .
A secure platform to do the voting over ( aka your pc is not secure and this by the way is most difficult part ) 7 .
A long voting period so that DOS attacks can not completely disable the systemSo there are actually a bunch more things that need to be considered but this list will get you a long way down the road .
And yes Internet based voting will eventually win out even with all of its detractors and problems .
So cheers to Canada for giving it a go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of the few people on this site who has actually created an internet based voting and registration system (mine was for the US government) I have a few opinions based on my experience.
First, online voting has already been tried by a number of countries, including the UK (the island didnâ(TM)t sink afterward), and found to not increase voter turnout.
So if their goal is to increase voter turnout they might want to consider encouraging candidates who the populace finds interesting rather than trying a technology fix.
Second, most paper or mechanical based systems are so broken that theoretically internet voting should be better.
In practice the broken parts of the current systems are codified in law and so the Internet equivalent systems end up being as bad or worse than the paper/mechanical systems.Once again based on experience here is what is required for this to work:1.
Laws in the country that actually support building effective secure systems2.
Visibility into the process of building the system and open code review (notice I did not specify open source though it is a possibility)3.
A national ID with a machine readable electronic identifier built into the ID4.
A willingness by the populace to use the system5.
A number of test runs of the system where voting is done on a topic that is interesting but will not affect the operation of the government6.
A secure platform to do the voting over (aka your pc is not secure and this by the way is most difficult part)7.
A long voting period so that DOS attacks cannot completely disable the systemSo there are actually a bunch more things that need to be considered but this list will get you a long way down the road.
And yes Internet based voting will eventually win out even with all of its detractors and problems.
So cheers to Canada for giving it a go!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</id>
	<title>Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1246118700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.  It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.  Even online voting.</p><p>It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.  But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy .
It really is , it 's a damn simple problem to solve .
Even online voting.It 's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor , and there should be a lesson in there for us .
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.
It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.
Even online voting.It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501341</id>
	<title>Problem with internet voting?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246127700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The voting ballet needs to be GPL'd.</p><p>Boom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The voting ballet needs to be GPL 'd.Boom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The voting ballet needs to be GPL'd.Boom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28506187</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.</i></p><p>I voted libertarian in the last election specifically because there was no chance in hell of them getting in.  I expect to vote the same way for the foreseeable future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I almost voted for the Communist just because I did n't know him and therefore did n't want to punch him in the face.I voted libertarian in the last election specifically because there was no chance in hell of them getting in .
I expect to vote the same way for the foreseeable future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.I voted libertarian in the last election specifically because there was no chance in hell of them getting in.
I expect to vote the same way for the foreseeable future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504415</id>
	<title>Re:As a Non-Canadian...</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246208880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Just asking... How about a "None of the above" vote.. That can win.
<br>
If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates. The process continues until someone is voted in.</i> <br> <br>That makes "none of the above" more or less equivalent to voting for the incumbent. Better would be to whatever is done if the post holder resigns or drops dead. There's also a difference between a strong "none of the above" which dosn't allow the candidates to restand and a weak one which does...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just asking... How about a " None of the above " vote.. That can win .
If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates .
The process continues until someone is voted in .
That makes " none of the above " more or less equivalent to voting for the incumbent .
Better would be to whatever is done if the post holder resigns or drops dead .
There 's also a difference between a strong " none of the above " which dos n't allow the candidates to restand and a weak one which does.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just asking... How about a "None of the above" vote.. That can win.
If none of the above wins - the current office holder stays but a new vote is taken with new candidates.
The process continues until someone is voted in.
That makes "none of the above" more or less equivalent to voting for the incumbent.
Better would be to whatever is done if the post holder resigns or drops dead.
There's also a difference between a strong "none of the above" which dosn't allow the candidates to restand and a weak one which does...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500361</id>
	<title>No way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not until it can be proven that person voting is the person they represent.  Not until it can be proven that you aren't be coerced into voting a certain way.</p><p>I will never support this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not until it can be proven that person voting is the person they represent .
Not until it can be proven that you are n't be coerced into voting a certain way.I will never support this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not until it can be proven that person voting is the person they represent.
Not until it can be proven that you aren't be coerced into voting a certain way.I will never support this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503093</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246198320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and, also, online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to (1) protect a voter from his own stupidity and (2) protect a voter from his own laziness.</i> <br> <br>There's also (3) possibly (0): Prevent a voter from protesting by deliberatly "spoiling" their ballot. It's possible that in complex elections a voter may be prevented from voting in a way which is within the rules, but not known to whoever wrote the software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and , also , online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to ( 1 ) protect a voter from his own stupidity and ( 2 ) protect a voter from his own laziness .
There 's also ( 3 ) possibly ( 0 ) : Prevent a voter from protesting by deliberatly " spoiling " their ballot .
It 's possible that in complex elections a voter may be prevented from voting in a way which is within the rules , but not known to whoever wrote the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and, also, online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to (1) protect a voter from his own stupidity and (2) protect a voter from his own laziness.
There's also (3) possibly (0): Prevent a voter from protesting by deliberatly "spoiling" their ballot.
It's possible that in complex elections a voter may be prevented from voting in a way which is within the rules, but not known to whoever wrote the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500711</id>
	<title>It ain't broke so don't fix it.</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1246121460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's no problem here so nothing needs to be changed. The reason that turnout was low (by Canadian standards - still good by American standards) was that few people saw the election as likely to change anything. And it isn't as if it is hard to vote in Canada. There are lots of convenient polling places and there is no significant wait. You can be in and out in less than five minutes. If voting is that easy and people still don't bother, they don't care.  Let the people who are paying attention to the candidates and the issues vote. What good does it do to make it even easier for apathetic voters to vote?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no problem here so nothing needs to be changed .
The reason that turnout was low ( by Canadian standards - still good by American standards ) was that few people saw the election as likely to change anything .
And it is n't as if it is hard to vote in Canada .
There are lots of convenient polling places and there is no significant wait .
You can be in and out in less than five minutes .
If voting is that easy and people still do n't bother , they do n't care .
Let the people who are paying attention to the candidates and the issues vote .
What good does it do to make it even easier for apathetic voters to vote ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's no problem here so nothing needs to be changed.
The reason that turnout was low (by Canadian standards - still good by American standards) was that few people saw the election as likely to change anything.
And it isn't as if it is hard to vote in Canada.
There are lots of convenient polling places and there is no significant wait.
You can be in and out in less than five minutes.
If voting is that easy and people still don't bother, they don't care.
Let the people who are paying attention to the candidates and the issues vote.
What good does it do to make it even easier for apathetic voters to vote?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500745</id>
	<title>Compulsory voting....</title>
	<author>Phurge</author>
	<datestamp>1246121700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your voter turnout is low, instead of the epic fail that is electronic voting, why not legislate and make voting compulsory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your voter turnout is low , instead of the epic fail that is electronic voting , why not legislate and make voting compulsory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your voter turnout is low, instead of the epic fail that is electronic voting, why not legislate and make voting compulsory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501955</id>
	<title>Re:As seen in The Times top 100...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246181940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! and for the clueless who doesn't know what marblecakealsothegame is you may read all about it here...</p><p>http://madisonian.net/2009/04/29/marblecake-also-the-game/</p><p>Now, if that doesn't wake your ass up...</p><p>Consider specially crafted chips at the doping level. If anyone applied a little fucking logic to the idea we could finally end this insane open source vs. closed source nonsense argument--both run on the fucking semiconductors!  What are you going to do, destructively reverse engineer every chip?</p><p>Not to forget semi-conductors also burn up...</p><p>You want to vote across the internet?  Maybe after North Korea chooses your fuckin president you'll clue up!</p><p>Not to forget the same electronic vote tabulation device and internet voting shit is being pushed in the United States right now.</p><p>A poll watcher can't physically see an electromagnetic electronic signal with the naked eye. And if he could see such signals, there would be no transparency (privacy, anonymity they don't make those stupid voting booths for your god damn health it's so that nobody knows WHO you vote for. Historically, you could be killed.)</p><p>Note that I cuss a lot, because this shit has gone on far too long, and for all you fuckwads that want to say paper is no safer, your right it isn't as long as you have a fucking broken chain of custody, and no public oversight. If you can't grasp those simple concepts you really are a  fucking moron.</p><p>Or...</p><p>
&nbsp; a.) Corrupt, b.)Agent Provocateur, c.) Electronic Voting Machine Manufacturer</p><p>Now while I personally don't have the resources to specially craft chips and hold your fucking hand and show you examples of logic bombs, internal chip logic destruction via RF remote source, any god damn electronics tech knows exactly what I am telling you is the fucking truth. And nobody is checking it. Because you would have to destroy every fucking box!  But if someone did hold your fucking hand and show you examples then that would leave only Corruption as the pro machine way. Which the people can then expose as the true domestic enemy--not all this fucking DHS/TSA/NSA shit.</p><p>Oh by the way, since the NSA has fios splitter, who's to say they don't just proxy your stupid vote and MIM it? Oh that's right you gave up your fucking right to transparency cause you are stupid and have no place deciding shit about such technology... Like the fuckwad Senator HOLT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
and for the clueless who does n't know what marblecakealsothegame is you may read all about it here...http : //madisonian.net/2009/04/29/marblecake-also-the-game/Now , if that does n't wake your ass up...Consider specially crafted chips at the doping level .
If anyone applied a little fucking logic to the idea we could finally end this insane open source vs. closed source nonsense argument--both run on the fucking semiconductors !
What are you going to do , destructively reverse engineer every chip ? Not to forget semi-conductors also burn up...You want to vote across the internet ?
Maybe after North Korea chooses your fuckin president you 'll clue up ! Not to forget the same electronic vote tabulation device and internet voting shit is being pushed in the United States right now.A poll watcher ca n't physically see an electromagnetic electronic signal with the naked eye .
And if he could see such signals , there would be no transparency ( privacy , anonymity they do n't make those stupid voting booths for your god damn health it 's so that nobody knows WHO you vote for .
Historically , you could be killed .
) Note that I cuss a lot , because this shit has gone on far too long , and for all you fuckwads that want to say paper is no safer , your right it is n't as long as you have a fucking broken chain of custody , and no public oversight .
If you ca n't grasp those simple concepts you really are a fucking moron.Or.. .   a .
) Corrupt , b .
) Agent Provocateur , c. ) Electronic Voting Machine ManufacturerNow while I personally do n't have the resources to specially craft chips and hold your fucking hand and show you examples of logic bombs , internal chip logic destruction via RF remote source , any god damn electronics tech knows exactly what I am telling you is the fucking truth .
And nobody is checking it .
Because you would have to destroy every fucking box !
But if someone did hold your fucking hand and show you examples then that would leave only Corruption as the pro machine way .
Which the people can then expose as the true domestic enemy--not all this fucking DHS/TSA/NSA shit.Oh by the way , since the NSA has fios splitter , who 's to say they do n't just proxy your stupid vote and MIM it ?
Oh that 's right you gave up your fucking right to transparency cause you are stupid and have no place deciding shit about such technology... Like the fuckwad Senator HOLT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
and for the clueless who doesn't know what marblecakealsothegame is you may read all about it here...http://madisonian.net/2009/04/29/marblecake-also-the-game/Now, if that doesn't wake your ass up...Consider specially crafted chips at the doping level.
If anyone applied a little fucking logic to the idea we could finally end this insane open source vs. closed source nonsense argument--both run on the fucking semiconductors!
What are you going to do, destructively reverse engineer every chip?Not to forget semi-conductors also burn up...You want to vote across the internet?
Maybe after North Korea chooses your fuckin president you'll clue up!Not to forget the same electronic vote tabulation device and internet voting shit is being pushed in the United States right now.A poll watcher can't physically see an electromagnetic electronic signal with the naked eye.
And if he could see such signals, there would be no transparency (privacy, anonymity they don't make those stupid voting booths for your god damn health it's so that nobody knows WHO you vote for.
Historically, you could be killed.
)Note that I cuss a lot, because this shit has gone on far too long, and for all you fuckwads that want to say paper is no safer, your right it isn't as long as you have a fucking broken chain of custody, and no public oversight.
If you can't grasp those simple concepts you really are a  fucking moron.Or...
  a.
) Corrupt, b.
)Agent Provocateur, c.) Electronic Voting Machine ManufacturerNow while I personally don't have the resources to specially craft chips and hold your fucking hand and show you examples of logic bombs, internal chip logic destruction via RF remote source, any god damn electronics tech knows exactly what I am telling you is the fucking truth.
And nobody is checking it.
Because you would have to destroy every fucking box!
But if someone did hold your fucking hand and show you examples then that would leave only Corruption as the pro machine way.
Which the people can then expose as the true domestic enemy--not all this fucking DHS/TSA/NSA shit.Oh by the way, since the NSA has fios splitter, who's to say they don't just proxy your stupid vote and MIM it?
Oh that's right you gave up your fucking right to transparency cause you are stupid and have no place deciding shit about such technology... Like the fuckwad Senator HOLT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513189</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1246285680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to have two election reforms in Canada:</p><p>#1.  I would like to be able to rank candidates in order, much as the aussies do.  This changes strategic voting.  E.g. I mark the green candidate as my first pick, because I agree with his policies, even though I'm pretty sure he won't get in.  When my candidate is eliminated, my vote is transfered to whoever I put down 2nd.  This process continues until a candidate has a majority.</p><p>It also allows endless material for pundit analysis as the returns come on. (Yes, John, 18\% of people who marked the PC's as first choice marked the NDP as second choice...)</p><p>#2.  The second is more controversial.  I would like an option to say, "No candidate is acceptable."  In this situation a candidate still requires a majority to win.  If sufficient people mark NCIS then there is a new election called, but no candidate that didn't get 100/N\% of the vote can run in the second election.  (N = number of candidates running.)  Thus if there are 4 candidates running, you have to have gotten 25\% of the vote to run in the second one.  This eliminates the noise at the bottom of the heap, and requires the parties to find a better candidate.</p><p>Being able to mark NCIS would be a big incentive to get out the vote.</p><p>Because our elections don't have people stumping around the country for  a year before they occur, this is workable here. Generally national elections are called 6 weeks before the election.  Candidates are chosen by their riding association.  It would mean that RA's would choose a backup candidate.</p><p>It would be more interesting at the municipal level.  Much of the problem here is either lack of choice (only one person runs) or there are two fools contending for their piece of pork.  It could be that the second election is equally inconclusive.</p><p>I would propose that in this situation that the lieutenant governor of the next level of government up appoint a person to represent that group's interests.  E.g. for a muni election the provician Lt. Gov would appoint.  For a national riding, the governor general would appoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to have two election reforms in Canada : # 1 .
I would like to be able to rank candidates in order , much as the aussies do .
This changes strategic voting .
E.g. I mark the green candidate as my first pick , because I agree with his policies , even though I 'm pretty sure he wo n't get in .
When my candidate is eliminated , my vote is transfered to whoever I put down 2nd .
This process continues until a candidate has a majority.It also allows endless material for pundit analysis as the returns come on .
( Yes , John , 18 \ % of people who marked the PC 's as first choice marked the NDP as second choice... ) # 2 .
The second is more controversial .
I would like an option to say , " No candidate is acceptable .
" In this situation a candidate still requires a majority to win .
If sufficient people mark NCIS then there is a new election called , but no candidate that did n't get 100/N \ % of the vote can run in the second election .
( N = number of candidates running .
) Thus if there are 4 candidates running , you have to have gotten 25 \ % of the vote to run in the second one .
This eliminates the noise at the bottom of the heap , and requires the parties to find a better candidate.Being able to mark NCIS would be a big incentive to get out the vote.Because our elections do n't have people stumping around the country for a year before they occur , this is workable here .
Generally national elections are called 6 weeks before the election .
Candidates are chosen by their riding association .
It would mean that RA 's would choose a backup candidate.It would be more interesting at the municipal level .
Much of the problem here is either lack of choice ( only one person runs ) or there are two fools contending for their piece of pork .
It could be that the second election is equally inconclusive.I would propose that in this situation that the lieutenant governor of the next level of government up appoint a person to represent that group 's interests .
E.g. for a muni election the provician Lt. Gov would appoint .
For a national riding , the governor general would appoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to have two election reforms in Canada:#1.
I would like to be able to rank candidates in order, much as the aussies do.
This changes strategic voting.
E.g. I mark the green candidate as my first pick, because I agree with his policies, even though I'm pretty sure he won't get in.
When my candidate is eliminated, my vote is transfered to whoever I put down 2nd.
This process continues until a candidate has a majority.It also allows endless material for pundit analysis as the returns come on.
(Yes, John, 18\% of people who marked the PC's as first choice marked the NDP as second choice...)#2.
The second is more controversial.
I would like an option to say, "No candidate is acceptable.
"  In this situation a candidate still requires a majority to win.
If sufficient people mark NCIS then there is a new election called, but no candidate that didn't get 100/N\% of the vote can run in the second election.
(N = number of candidates running.
)  Thus if there are 4 candidates running, you have to have gotten 25\% of the vote to run in the second one.
This eliminates the noise at the bottom of the heap, and requires the parties to find a better candidate.Being able to mark NCIS would be a big incentive to get out the vote.Because our elections don't have people stumping around the country for  a year before they occur, this is workable here.
Generally national elections are called 6 weeks before the election.
Candidates are chosen by their riding association.
It would mean that RA's would choose a backup candidate.It would be more interesting at the municipal level.
Much of the problem here is either lack of choice (only one person runs) or there are two fools contending for their piece of pork.
It could be that the second election is equally inconclusive.I would propose that in this situation that the lieutenant governor of the next level of government up appoint a person to represent that group's interests.
E.g. for a muni election the provician Lt. Gov would appoint.
For a national riding, the governor general would appoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1246120440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some Counties in Washington State use All Mail voting.</p><p>Ballots mailed out.<br>Sent back in un-numbered un-signed inner envelope which is inside of a bar coded and signed outer envelope.<br>You mail it back in, or take it to ballot drop off places.</p><p>Its still a secret ballot. As secret as you want it to be.  No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch.</p><p>Secrecy is always by choice.</p><p>An enforced secret ballot (in the voting booth) hasn't exactly forestalled vote buying, or tomb-stoning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some Counties in Washington State use All Mail voting.Ballots mailed out.Sent back in un-numbered un-signed inner envelope which is inside of a bar coded and signed outer envelope.You mail it back in , or take it to ballot drop off places.Its still a secret ballot .
As secret as you want it to be .
No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch.Secrecy is always by choice.An enforced secret ballot ( in the voting booth ) has n't exactly forestalled vote buying , or tomb-stoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some Counties in Washington State use All Mail voting.Ballots mailed out.Sent back in un-numbered un-signed inner envelope which is inside of a bar coded and signed outer envelope.You mail it back in, or take it to ballot drop off places.Its still a secret ballot.
As secret as you want it to be.
No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch.Secrecy is always by choice.An enforced secret ballot (in the voting booth) hasn't exactly forestalled vote buying, or tomb-stoning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500821</id>
	<title>Saver than Diebold</title>
	<author>lsdi</author>
	<datestamp>1246122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bottom line is that SSL, A3 certificate and mutual authentication is a save. Saver than using voting machines, I'm sure. This methods are much saver than paper and pen voting. There may have problems with this kind of technology but make no mistakes, a peace of paper is way less secure than this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bottom line is that SSL , A3 certificate and mutual authentication is a save .
Saver than using voting machines , I 'm sure .
This methods are much saver than paper and pen voting .
There may have problems with this kind of technology but make no mistakes , a peace of paper is way less secure than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bottom line is that SSL, A3 certificate and mutual authentication is a save.
Saver than using voting machines, I'm sure.
This methods are much saver than paper and pen voting.
There may have problems with this kind of technology but make no mistakes, a peace of paper is way less secure than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501815</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, stupid, stupid idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246222200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're too lazy to get your ass off the couch to vote, then we're probably better off with you not voting at all!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're too lazy to get your ass off the couch to vote , then we 're probably better off with you not voting at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're too lazy to get your ass off the couch to vote, then we're probably better off with you not voting at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508337</id>
	<title>Re:Votes can be coerced with guns.</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1246195740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suppose your boss decides to pressure you to vote the way he wants. Suppose everybody's boss pressures them to vote the way they want. You could quite easily see a very strong bias.</p></div><p>Just being someone's boss doesn't necessarily mean a person has the exact same political desires as other bosses.  But, yeah, it's quite probable that en masse bosses would skew a certain way.  But being someone's boss also means you're in a position of additional accountability if any one of half a dozen employees reports you for vote coercion.</p><p>Even if we're not talking about a general directional skew in election results, the principle of protecting individual franchise is important.  That's the fundamental issue here, not mass coercion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Thankfully, "sticking your head in the sand" is not considered a valid engineering method. The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account. The fact that you're naive doesn't mean we should all be naive.</p></div><p>You're acting like a dick.  Doing that is actively harmful to your cause and is harmful even to people not directly involved in this discussion, so I recommend against it.</p><p>On to your point.  I did not advocate any specific action, I only speculated on the mechanics and outcome of the scenario.</p><p>However, I do contest your reasoning.  "Valid engineering" should involve an understanding of the system you're trying to work with.  It's not useful take into account every infinitely remote possibility.  No, you design for practicality, by expectation.  If you can reasonably (i.e., without excessive energy) design solutions that eliminate entire swaths of problem space, including whole classes of vanishingly remote possibilities, then great.  But more brain power has to be put to understanding the nature of what the problem <em>is</em> instead of what it might be.  Scenarios in which the problem space involves lots of humans make for challenging design.  It's often impossible to know with certainty what the practical needs of the solution are.  You judge as best you can, looking at the phenomena involved and weighing them for likelihood and impact on the design.  I can see mass coercion by a single entity in a first world country as a (really small) factor, just not a primary concern.  Go ahead and weigh it in and design for it, and if you have an easy answer, then great.</p><p>As mentioned above, I feel that protection of individual franchise is an important principle.  It should be a primary concern, and the impractically small issue of mass coercion would be protected against under the same umbrella.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.</p><p>The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture.</p></div><p>The local Don wouldn't have gotten to his position if he spent all his time mucking in details, failing to understand ideas like the basic concept of efficiency.  The threat of a single chambered round gets him... one vote?  I wouldn't call that a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities unless you were arguing that trying to influence elections by coercion by gun would be ineffectual.</p><p>As for the employer or local force of whatever nature coercing through favoritism or the threat of firing, my point is that if you try to do these things on a scale large enough to have a concerted impact in a first world country where laws exist against vote coercion and for protecting labor, your activity will be too obvious to avoid repercussions.</p><p>As above, the real concern is not mass coercion, but the principle of individual franchise.  Solving that solves your bogeyman simultaneously.</p><p>If you want to make progress instead of just brow beat, focus on solutions.  I know there are numerous solutions out there to protect against vote coercion, but I don't know if any work specifically in a home-voting scenario.  Links?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose your boss decides to pressure you to vote the way he wants .
Suppose everybody 's boss pressures them to vote the way they want .
You could quite easily see a very strong bias.Just being someone 's boss does n't necessarily mean a person has the exact same political desires as other bosses .
But , yeah , it 's quite probable that en masse bosses would skew a certain way .
But being someone 's boss also means you 're in a position of additional accountability if any one of half a dozen employees reports you for vote coercion.Even if we 're not talking about a general directional skew in election results , the principle of protecting individual franchise is important .
That 's the fundamental issue here , not mass coercion.Thankfully , " sticking your head in the sand " is not considered a valid engineering method .
The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account .
The fact that you 're naive does n't mean we should all be naive.You 're acting like a dick .
Doing that is actively harmful to your cause and is harmful even to people not directly involved in this discussion , so I recommend against it.On to your point .
I did not advocate any specific action , I only speculated on the mechanics and outcome of the scenario.However , I do contest your reasoning .
" Valid engineering " should involve an understanding of the system you 're trying to work with .
It 's not useful take into account every infinitely remote possibility .
No , you design for practicality , by expectation .
If you can reasonably ( i.e. , without excessive energy ) design solutions that eliminate entire swaths of problem space , including whole classes of vanishingly remote possibilities , then great .
But more brain power has to be put to understanding the nature of what the problem is instead of what it might be .
Scenarios in which the problem space involves lots of humans make for challenging design .
It 's often impossible to know with certainty what the practical needs of the solution are .
You judge as best you can , looking at the phenomena involved and weighing them for likelihood and impact on the design .
I can see mass coercion by a single entity in a first world country as a ( really small ) factor , just not a primary concern .
Go ahead and weigh it in and design for it , and if you have an easy answer , then great.As mentioned above , I feel that protection of individual franchise is an important principle .
It should be a primary concern , and the impractically small issue of mass coercion would be protected against under the same umbrella.The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture.The local Don would n't have gotten to his position if he spent all his time mucking in details , failing to understand ideas like the basic concept of efficiency .
The threat of a single chambered round gets him... one vote ?
I would n't call that a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities unless you were arguing that trying to influence elections by coercion by gun would be ineffectual.As for the employer or local force of whatever nature coercing through favoritism or the threat of firing , my point is that if you try to do these things on a scale large enough to have a concerted impact in a first world country where laws exist against vote coercion and for protecting labor , your activity will be too obvious to avoid repercussions.As above , the real concern is not mass coercion , but the principle of individual franchise .
Solving that solves your bogeyman simultaneously.If you want to make progress instead of just brow beat , focus on solutions .
I know there are numerous solutions out there to protect against vote coercion , but I do n't know if any work specifically in a home-voting scenario .
Links ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose your boss decides to pressure you to vote the way he wants.
Suppose everybody's boss pressures them to vote the way they want.
You could quite easily see a very strong bias.Just being someone's boss doesn't necessarily mean a person has the exact same political desires as other bosses.
But, yeah, it's quite probable that en masse bosses would skew a certain way.
But being someone's boss also means you're in a position of additional accountability if any one of half a dozen employees reports you for vote coercion.Even if we're not talking about a general directional skew in election results, the principle of protecting individual franchise is important.
That's the fundamental issue here, not mass coercion.Thankfully, "sticking your head in the sand" is not considered a valid engineering method.
The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account.
The fact that you're naive doesn't mean we should all be naive.You're acting like a dick.
Doing that is actively harmful to your cause and is harmful even to people not directly involved in this discussion, so I recommend against it.On to your point.
I did not advocate any specific action, I only speculated on the mechanics and outcome of the scenario.However, I do contest your reasoning.
"Valid engineering" should involve an understanding of the system you're trying to work with.
It's not useful take into account every infinitely remote possibility.
No, you design for practicality, by expectation.
If you can reasonably (i.e., without excessive energy) design solutions that eliminate entire swaths of problem space, including whole classes of vanishingly remote possibilities, then great.
But more brain power has to be put to understanding the nature of what the problem is instead of what it might be.
Scenarios in which the problem space involves lots of humans make for challenging design.
It's often impossible to know with certainty what the practical needs of the solution are.
You judge as best you can, looking at the phenomena involved and weighing them for likelihood and impact on the design.
I can see mass coercion by a single entity in a first world country as a (really small) factor, just not a primary concern.
Go ahead and weigh it in and design for it, and if you have an easy answer, then great.As mentioned above, I feel that protection of individual franchise is an important principle.
It should be a primary concern, and the impractically small issue of mass coercion would be protected against under the same umbrella.The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture.The local Don wouldn't have gotten to his position if he spent all his time mucking in details, failing to understand ideas like the basic concept of efficiency.
The threat of a single chambered round gets him... one vote?
I wouldn't call that a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities unless you were arguing that trying to influence elections by coercion by gun would be ineffectual.As for the employer or local force of whatever nature coercing through favoritism or the threat of firing, my point is that if you try to do these things on a scale large enough to have a concerted impact in a first world country where laws exist against vote coercion and for protecting labor, your activity will be too obvious to avoid repercussions.As above, the real concern is not mass coercion, but the principle of individual franchise.
Solving that solves your bogeyman simultaneously.If you want to make progress instead of just brow beat, focus on solutions.
I know there are numerous solutions out there to protect against vote coercion, but I don't know if any work specifically in a home-voting scenario.
Links?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503749</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246203960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent poster has it right. People shouldn't be causally voting for a candidate. If they can't find the time to go to the polling station, then what are the chances they've made a serious effort to learn about the candidates and the policies of their respective parties, attend debates, and otherwise become an informed citizen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent poster has it right .
People should n't be causally voting for a candidate .
If they ca n't find the time to go to the polling station , then what are the chances they 've made a serious effort to learn about the candidates and the policies of their respective parties , attend debates , and otherwise become an informed citizen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent poster has it right.
People shouldn't be causally voting for a candidate.
If they can't find the time to go to the polling station, then what are the chances they've made a serious effort to learn about the candidates and the policies of their respective parties, attend debates, and otherwise become an informed citizen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501873</id>
	<title>What could go wrong?</title>
	<author>slayer\_ix</author>
	<datestamp>1246179840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whats the worse case scenario with this?  Do we Slashdoters 6have no faith in the security of the tubes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whats the worse case scenario with this ?
Do we Slashdoters 6have no faith in the security of the tubes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whats the worse case scenario with this?
Do we Slashdoters 6have no faith in the security of the tubes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505845</id>
	<title>The reason for low Vote turnouts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with being able to vote online, it has nothing to do with being lazy</p><p>20\% of this fucking country cannot stand to stomach any of the candidates running in their areas.</p><p>I didn't vote this time and it was on purpose. God damnit get it through your tick skulls, we want some reasonable non-lying candidates!!!</p><p>Every broken promise is a 'I'm not voting for him again' then 4 years later the next guy rapes me in the ass too.. well guess what none of them are getting my vote just to rape me and my country in the ass!!</p><p>There is a huge void.. and if I wasn't so piss poor as a result of the crappy government we have I would run myself. Even though I'm not a good speaker or popular at least I could maybe show people that there is a sector that is crying to be able to vote but just cannot!!!</p><p>Oh but of course no-one would hear about me because the local news would marginalize me and only cover other candidates, and I don't have the money to hire people to go around planting signs and passing out flyers and whatever else.<br>As long as we allow candidates to spend *ANY* money on the election process we are all doomed to vote in rich fucks who stamp all over us.</p><p>We don't need more election funding we need *LESS*... make flyers and ads illegal!! all they do it cloud the issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with being able to vote online , it has nothing to do with being lazy20 \ % of this fucking country can not stand to stomach any of the candidates running in their areas.I did n't vote this time and it was on purpose .
God damnit get it through your tick skulls , we want some reasonable non-lying candidates ! !
! Every broken promise is a 'I 'm not voting for him again ' then 4 years later the next guy rapes me in the ass too.. well guess what none of them are getting my vote just to rape me and my country in the ass !
! There is a huge void.. and if I was n't so piss poor as a result of the crappy government we have I would run myself .
Even though I 'm not a good speaker or popular at least I could maybe show people that there is a sector that is crying to be able to vote but just can not ! !
! Oh but of course no-one would hear about me because the local news would marginalize me and only cover other candidates , and I do n't have the money to hire people to go around planting signs and passing out flyers and whatever else.As long as we allow candidates to spend * ANY * money on the election process we are all doomed to vote in rich fucks who stamp all over us.We do n't need more election funding we need * LESS * ... make flyers and ads illegal ! !
all they do it cloud the issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with being able to vote online, it has nothing to do with being lazy20\% of this fucking country cannot stand to stomach any of the candidates running in their areas.I didn't vote this time and it was on purpose.
God damnit get it through your tick skulls, we want some reasonable non-lying candidates!!
!Every broken promise is a 'I'm not voting for him again' then 4 years later the next guy rapes me in the ass too.. well guess what none of them are getting my vote just to rape me and my country in the ass!
!There is a huge void.. and if I wasn't so piss poor as a result of the crappy government we have I would run myself.
Even though I'm not a good speaker or popular at least I could maybe show people that there is a sector that is crying to be able to vote but just cannot!!
!Oh but of course no-one would hear about me because the local news would marginalize me and only cover other candidates, and I don't have the money to hire people to go around planting signs and passing out flyers and whatever else.As long as we allow candidates to spend *ANY* money on the election process we are all doomed to vote in rich fucks who stamp all over us.We don't need more election funding we need *LESS*... make flyers and ads illegal!!
all they do it cloud the issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501839</id>
	<title>People don't vote because of FPTP/SMP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246222500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First past the post or single member plurality voting is what keeps Canadians away from the polls. Because each riding only has one rep who only needs a plurality of votes (generally 30\%-45\%). Any vote for a non-winner is discarded and contributes nothing to parliament but a small government subsidy to the party receiving the vote. This effectively means that the majority of votes cast have no effect. Canadians and citizens in other democracies which suffer from this archaic voting system don't vote because they know it won't do any good. FPTP was designed to ensure there are only ever two viable groups of elites competing for power; it does the job very well and people don't like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First past the post or single member plurality voting is what keeps Canadians away from the polls .
Because each riding only has one rep who only needs a plurality of votes ( generally 30 \ % -45 \ % ) .
Any vote for a non-winner is discarded and contributes nothing to parliament but a small government subsidy to the party receiving the vote .
This effectively means that the majority of votes cast have no effect .
Canadians and citizens in other democracies which suffer from this archaic voting system do n't vote because they know it wo n't do any good .
FPTP was designed to ensure there are only ever two viable groups of elites competing for power ; it does the job very well and people do n't like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First past the post or single member plurality voting is what keeps Canadians away from the polls.
Because each riding only has one rep who only needs a plurality of votes (generally 30\%-45\%).
Any vote for a non-winner is discarded and contributes nothing to parliament but a small government subsidy to the party receiving the vote.
This effectively means that the majority of votes cast have no effect.
Canadians and citizens in other democracies which suffer from this archaic voting system don't vote because they know it won't do any good.
FPTP was designed to ensure there are only ever two viable groups of elites competing for power; it does the job very well and people don't like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504725</id>
	<title>Re:Votes can be coerced with guns.</title>
	<author>darthflo</author>
	<datestamp>1246210800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.</p><p>The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local Don standing behind you with a cocked 9mm while you cast your vote is a nice picture to illustrate the possibilities.The employer/union advising you to vote for x and favouring people who did when promotions and/or layoffs come around are the boring and far more real picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28598721</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>alexo</author>
	<datestamp>1246913820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED. I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.</p></div></blockquote><p>Should have voted Green. It's good to stir the pot once in a while.</p><blockquote><div><p>And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed. So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good. Two good politicians? This never happens.</p></div></blockquote><p>We tried to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario\_electoral\_reform\_referendum,\_2007" title="wikipedia.org">fix the system</a> [wikipedia.org].  Failed miserably.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that " voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record " was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED .
I almost voted for the Communist just because I did n't know him and therefore did n't want to punch him in the face.Should have voted Green .
It 's good to stir the pot once in a while.And then there 's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person , so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I 'm screwed .
So , to cast a vote I feel good about , both the local guy and the party leader have to be good .
Two good politicians ?
This never happens.We tried to fix the system [ wikipedia.org ] .
Failed miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED.
I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.Should have voted Green.
It's good to stir the pot once in a while.And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed.
So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good.
Two good politicians?
This never happens.We tried to fix the system [wikipedia.org].
Failed miserably.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425</id>
	<title>Votes can be coerced with guns.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In any election that lets people vote from anywhere, votes can be coerced with a gun, and people can show their actual vote to whatever corrupt mafioso wants to force their vote. These things are not possible (or at least they're more difficult) if the only places to vote are properly run, properly secure polling places.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In any election that lets people vote from anywhere , votes can be coerced with a gun , and people can show their actual vote to whatever corrupt mafioso wants to force their vote .
These things are not possible ( or at least they 're more difficult ) if the only places to vote are properly run , properly secure polling places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In any election that lets people vote from anywhere, votes can be coerced with a gun, and people can show their actual vote to whatever corrupt mafioso wants to force their vote.
These things are not possible (or at least they're more difficult) if the only places to vote are properly run, properly secure polling places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500491</id>
	<title>When computers are granted suffrage</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1246119660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only then should they be permitted to count votes.  Until then, if the issue is worth all of us voting on it, it's worth a few of us spending part of our day counting the votes.
</p><p>/~30 years computer scientist here.  I know more ways to cheat an electronic election than you do most likely.  I don't know any way to secure an electronic election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only then should they be permitted to count votes .
Until then , if the issue is worth all of us voting on it , it 's worth a few of us spending part of our day counting the votes .
/ ~ 30 years computer scientist here .
I know more ways to cheat an electronic election than you do most likely .
I do n't know any way to secure an electronic election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only then should they be permitted to count votes.
Until then, if the issue is worth all of us voting on it, it's worth a few of us spending part of our day counting the votes.
/~30 years computer scientist here.
I know more ways to cheat an electronic election than you do most likely.
I don't know any way to secure an electronic election.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504731</id>
	<title>Bad turnout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record"<br>Geez that couln't have anything to do with the new voting regulations that prevented a lot of people from voting (mainly young people without their driver's license). For those that didn't know, in the last election we had to prove our address in addition to our identity using a card with both your picture and your address and a utility bill with your name and address on it, OR show two cards with your name and address.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record " Geez that coul n't have anything to do with the new voting regulations that prevented a lot of people from voting ( mainly young people without their driver 's license ) .
For those that did n't know , in the last election we had to prove our address in addition to our identity using a card with both your picture and your address and a utility bill with your name and address on it , OR show two cards with your name and address .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record"Geez that couln't have anything to do with the new voting regulations that prevented a lot of people from voting (mainly young people without their driver's license).
For those that didn't know, in the last election we had to prove our address in addition to our identity using a card with both your picture and your address and a utility bill with your name and address on it, OR show two cards with your name and address.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501215</id>
	<title>Why would online voting makes more people to vote?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If people are not interested about politics, then why would they be more interested about it only because they can vote from the net or by using electronic methods?  Another question is, if they don't care enough about their vote to go to the poolling booth, or use the many available way to vote by anticipation or by mail, couldn't we consider that their vote isn't that important anyway?  If they don't care about who will govern them, then that's fine by me that their choice doesn't influence who will get elected (and then, they shouldn't complain if they are not happy with who govern them).</p><p>I suspect that allowing online voting will do very little to make people more interested about politics, and not change by much the participation level (unless they is fraud or bugs, which can happens as Florida taught us).</p><p>Also, if we stop having a general election every few months, perhaps more people will go to vote.</p><p>Finally, few years ago I participated to a forum organised by the Province of Qu&#233;bec about this same question (online voting), and in short the conclusion was that it was cheaper, more reliable and easier to prove the legitimacy of the results by continuing to manually count the vote the old way (I also personnaly find it exciting to see the results comming in progressively in a spread of few hours).  Also in the conclusion was that the advantages of electronic or online voting wasn't obvious enough to justify taking risks with the current voting method.  It finally said that we should wait until electronic vote has been proven successful in some other countries before considering this question again, because the current voting mecanism works reasonnably well and that its legitimacy is well recognized so that we can wait until the other countries have resolved the many issues involving online voting before adopting it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If people are not interested about politics , then why would they be more interested about it only because they can vote from the net or by using electronic methods ?
Another question is , if they do n't care enough about their vote to go to the poolling booth , or use the many available way to vote by anticipation or by mail , could n't we consider that their vote is n't that important anyway ?
If they do n't care about who will govern them , then that 's fine by me that their choice does n't influence who will get elected ( and then , they should n't complain if they are not happy with who govern them ) .I suspect that allowing online voting will do very little to make people more interested about politics , and not change by much the participation level ( unless they is fraud or bugs , which can happens as Florida taught us ) .Also , if we stop having a general election every few months , perhaps more people will go to vote.Finally , few years ago I participated to a forum organised by the Province of Qu   bec about this same question ( online voting ) , and in short the conclusion was that it was cheaper , more reliable and easier to prove the legitimacy of the results by continuing to manually count the vote the old way ( I also personnaly find it exciting to see the results comming in progressively in a spread of few hours ) .
Also in the conclusion was that the advantages of electronic or online voting was n't obvious enough to justify taking risks with the current voting method .
It finally said that we should wait until electronic vote has been proven successful in some other countries before considering this question again , because the current voting mecanism works reasonnably well and that its legitimacy is well recognized so that we can wait until the other countries have resolved the many issues involving online voting before adopting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people are not interested about politics, then why would they be more interested about it only because they can vote from the net or by using electronic methods?
Another question is, if they don't care enough about their vote to go to the poolling booth, or use the many available way to vote by anticipation or by mail, couldn't we consider that their vote isn't that important anyway?
If they don't care about who will govern them, then that's fine by me that their choice doesn't influence who will get elected (and then, they shouldn't complain if they are not happy with who govern them).I suspect that allowing online voting will do very little to make people more interested about politics, and not change by much the participation level (unless they is fraud or bugs, which can happens as Florida taught us).Also, if we stop having a general election every few months, perhaps more people will go to vote.Finally, few years ago I participated to a forum organised by the Province of Québec about this same question (online voting), and in short the conclusion was that it was cheaper, more reliable and easier to prove the legitimacy of the results by continuing to manually count the vote the old way (I also personnaly find it exciting to see the results comming in progressively in a spread of few hours).
Also in the conclusion was that the advantages of electronic or online voting wasn't obvious enough to justify taking risks with the current voting method.
It finally said that we should wait until electronic vote has been proven successful in some other countries before considering this question again, because the current voting mecanism works reasonnably well and that its legitimacy is well recognized so that we can wait until the other countries have resolved the many issues involving online voting before adopting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502681</id>
	<title>Re:4chan would rig it</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1246193400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Politicians are completely corrupt and useless, so I support transforming the government into an entertainment outlet. Granted it already serves this purpose, but politicians also lack the imagination to put on a good show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Politicians are completely corrupt and useless , so I support transforming the government into an entertainment outlet .
Granted it already serves this purpose , but politicians also lack the imagination to put on a good show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politicians are completely corrupt and useless, so I support transforming the government into an entertainment outlet.
Granted it already serves this purpose, but politicians also lack the imagination to put on a good show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500819</id>
	<title>I voted online a few times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in Zurich, Switzerland. If you are interested and understand german you can take a demo vote here: https://evoting.zh.ch/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in Zurich , Switzerland .
If you are interested and understand german you can take a demo vote here : https : //evoting.zh.ch/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Zurich, Switzerland.
If you are interested and understand german you can take a demo vote here: https://evoting.zh.ch/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581</id>
	<title>Re:Votes can be coerced with guns.</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1246131780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect the reality in a first world country is that you can't do this to the tune of enough votes without being far too obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect the reality in a first world country is that you ca n't do this to the tune of enough votes without being far too obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect the reality in a first world country is that you can't do this to the tune of enough votes without being far too obvious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500697</id>
	<title>Your Title Goes Here.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1246121340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Body (Content) Goes Here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Body ( Content ) Goes Here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Body (Content) Goes Here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500625</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1246120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would rather it take actual effort to vote.  That includes driving out to a centralized location, with other people, etc.</p><p>Because its much easier to get dumb people all riled up to vote one way if all they have to do is click a mouse button.  Whereas they have to take action and maybe an hour of their day to go and vote the current way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather it take actual effort to vote .
That includes driving out to a centralized location , with other people , etc.Because its much easier to get dumb people all riled up to vote one way if all they have to do is click a mouse button .
Whereas they have to take action and maybe an hour of their day to go and vote the current way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather it take actual effort to vote.
That includes driving out to a centralized location, with other people, etc.Because its much easier to get dumb people all riled up to vote one way if all they have to do is click a mouse button.
Whereas they have to take action and maybe an hour of their day to go and vote the current way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500613</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1246120680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jeian said it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeian said it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeian said it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500899</id>
	<title>Election reform is the real issue..</title>
	<author>LazyAcer</author>
	<datestamp>1246123140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't vote because it always comes down to the lesser of two evils. I live in Vancouver Canada and our political system is so deeply broken it fails in almost every respect. Under the current rules we will never get a functioning government the people actually believe in.</p><p>If there was a candidate worth voting for, people would vote. Go ahead and make voting mandatory, they already tie our names to the elections canada voting list from a check box on our income tax return so that would be no problem... but if they can't give people someone to vote for, give them a way to voice their displease and have a NON OF THE ABOVE option. Then count all the NON OF THE ABOVE votes and report them for all to see, only then will the people will be heard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't vote because it always comes down to the lesser of two evils .
I live in Vancouver Canada and our political system is so deeply broken it fails in almost every respect .
Under the current rules we will never get a functioning government the people actually believe in.If there was a candidate worth voting for , people would vote .
Go ahead and make voting mandatory , they already tie our names to the elections canada voting list from a check box on our income tax return so that would be no problem... but if they ca n't give people someone to vote for , give them a way to voice their displease and have a NON OF THE ABOVE option .
Then count all the NON OF THE ABOVE votes and report them for all to see , only then will the people will be heard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't vote because it always comes down to the lesser of two evils.
I live in Vancouver Canada and our political system is so deeply broken it fails in almost every respect.
Under the current rules we will never get a functioning government the people actually believe in.If there was a candidate worth voting for, people would vote.
Go ahead and make voting mandatory, they already tie our names to the elections canada voting list from a check box on our income tax return so that would be no problem... but if they can't give people someone to vote for, give them a way to voice their displease and have a NON OF THE ABOVE option.
Then count all the NON OF THE ABOVE votes and report them for all to see, only then will the people will be heard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503305</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1246200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i don't mean this at you, DirtyCanuck, sounds like you take elections and voting seriously.</p><p>but for the other 40-70\% who think you should be able to watch a tv and call in your vote for your leaders all in 30 minutes, the intellectual and civic sloth is revolting. if someone can spend 2 hours researching tv brands(probably more like 2 days+), they should be able to spend the equivalent learning about their potential officials, especially minor/3rd party candidates. and then making a decision and acting on it.</p><p>otherwise they get what they deserve, assuming the voting is mostly fraud-free. if it's a place like Iran, well, you may need other means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't mean this at you , DirtyCanuck , sounds like you take elections and voting seriously.but for the other 40-70 \ % who think you should be able to watch a tv and call in your vote for your leaders all in 30 minutes , the intellectual and civic sloth is revolting .
if someone can spend 2 hours researching tv brands ( probably more like 2 days + ) , they should be able to spend the equivalent learning about their potential officials , especially minor/3rd party candidates .
and then making a decision and acting on it.otherwise they get what they deserve , assuming the voting is mostly fraud-free .
if it 's a place like Iran , well , you may need other means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't mean this at you, DirtyCanuck, sounds like you take elections and voting seriously.but for the other 40-70\% who think you should be able to watch a tv and call in your vote for your leaders all in 30 minutes, the intellectual and civic sloth is revolting.
if someone can spend 2 hours researching tv brands(probably more like 2 days+), they should be able to spend the equivalent learning about their potential officials, especially minor/3rd party candidates.
and then making a decision and acting on it.otherwise they get what they deserve, assuming the voting is mostly fraud-free.
if it's a place like Iran, well, you may need other means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500885</id>
	<title>This Probably Won't Improve Voter Turnout</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reminded of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?\_r=2&amp;n=Top\%2FFeatures\%2FMagazine\%2FColumns\%2FFreakonomics&amp;oref=slogin" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [nytimes.com] by Steven Levitt, author of "Freakonomics", which he ran in the NYTimes around 4 years ago.</p><p>On page 2 Levitt describes how when Switzerland switched to mail-in ballots, it had record low voter participation.  The author seems to feel that people primarily vote because it is a social event.  By removing the human element, Levitt feels that Switzerland removed the only thing that made voting worth doing, since he feels the chance of someone's vote affecting the outcome of an election is diminutive.</p><p>...I tend to argree with Levitt, at least about the social dimension of voting.  I'd argue that changing to mail in ballots or online voting makes the event less social... and less fun.  And this will have extremely serious impacts on elections, possibly more so than 4chan rigging a lolcat to win an election or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded of this article [ nytimes.com ] by Steven Levitt , author of " Freakonomics " , which he ran in the NYTimes around 4 years ago.On page 2 Levitt describes how when Switzerland switched to mail-in ballots , it had record low voter participation .
The author seems to feel that people primarily vote because it is a social event .
By removing the human element , Levitt feels that Switzerland removed the only thing that made voting worth doing , since he feels the chance of someone 's vote affecting the outcome of an election is diminutive....I tend to argree with Levitt , at least about the social dimension of voting .
I 'd argue that changing to mail in ballots or online voting makes the event less social... and less fun .
And this will have extremely serious impacts on elections , possibly more so than 4chan rigging a lolcat to win an election or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded of this article [nytimes.com] by Steven Levitt, author of "Freakonomics", which he ran in the NYTimes around 4 years ago.On page 2 Levitt describes how when Switzerland switched to mail-in ballots, it had record low voter participation.
The author seems to feel that people primarily vote because it is a social event.
By removing the human element, Levitt feels that Switzerland removed the only thing that made voting worth doing, since he feels the chance of someone's vote affecting the outcome of an election is diminutive....I tend to argree with Levitt, at least about the social dimension of voting.
I'd argue that changing to mail in ballots or online voting makes the event less social... and less fun.
And this will have extremely serious impacts on elections, possibly more so than 4chan rigging a lolcat to win an election or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501259</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1246126560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that not voting is not a protest against having bad candidates, not voting is simply saying you guys (i.e the rest of the electorate) go ahead and pick someone, I'll go with whoever you pick.  There must have been one that is at least slightly less bad than the others, and that's the one you should be voting for.<br> <br>That does assume that you at least have a good idea who the candidates are and what policies they represent.  I'd be in favor of making voting harder, such as you have to write in a name of the candidate you are voting for or something like that, and write an essay on why you are voting for them (just kidding about the essay...). If you can't write your candidate's name then you're not fit to vote. What purpose is served by people voting by checking a random box cause they have no clue about any of the candidates anyway and they are just voting because you are "supposed to", or maybe voting for one whose name seems a bit more familiar than the others. I bet a lot more people do than than we think, or dare admit. <br> <br>In any case, I do agree with your point that making voting slightly easier will not make much difference and its not worth the risk. It won't be that much easier anyway, you still have to register online and deal with remembering passwords and dozen authentication questions and all that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that not voting is not a protest against having bad candidates , not voting is simply saying you guys ( i.e the rest of the electorate ) go ahead and pick someone , I 'll go with whoever you pick .
There must have been one that is at least slightly less bad than the others , and that 's the one you should be voting for .
That does assume that you at least have a good idea who the candidates are and what policies they represent .
I 'd be in favor of making voting harder , such as you have to write in a name of the candidate you are voting for or something like that , and write an essay on why you are voting for them ( just kidding about the essay... ) .
If you ca n't write your candidate 's name then you 're not fit to vote .
What purpose is served by people voting by checking a random box cause they have no clue about any of the candidates anyway and they are just voting because you are " supposed to " , or maybe voting for one whose name seems a bit more familiar than the others .
I bet a lot more people do than than we think , or dare admit .
In any case , I do agree with your point that making voting slightly easier will not make much difference and its not worth the risk .
It wo n't be that much easier anyway , you still have to register online and deal with remembering passwords and dozen authentication questions and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that not voting is not a protest against having bad candidates, not voting is simply saying you guys (i.e the rest of the electorate) go ahead and pick someone, I'll go with whoever you pick.
There must have been one that is at least slightly less bad than the others, and that's the one you should be voting for.
That does assume that you at least have a good idea who the candidates are and what policies they represent.
I'd be in favor of making voting harder, such as you have to write in a name of the candidate you are voting for or something like that, and write an essay on why you are voting for them (just kidding about the essay...).
If you can't write your candidate's name then you're not fit to vote.
What purpose is served by people voting by checking a random box cause they have no clue about any of the candidates anyway and they are just voting because you are "supposed to", or maybe voting for one whose name seems a bit more familiar than the others.
I bet a lot more people do than than we think, or dare admit.
In any case, I do agree with your point that making voting slightly easier will not make much difference and its not worth the risk.
It won't be that much easier anyway, you still have to register online and deal with remembering passwords and dozen authentication questions and all that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503785</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246204200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Voting must be anonymous and private. If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants.</p></div><p>Unless the voter could vote as himself and not have it counted...if there is true voter confidentiality, the briber wouldn't know the difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Voting must be anonymous and private .
If you allow online voting , then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $ 50 to vote the way he wants.Unless the voter could vote as himself and not have it counted...if there is true voter confidentiality , the briber would n't know the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voting must be anonymous and private.
If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants.Unless the voter could vote as himself and not have it counted...if there is true voter confidentiality, the briber wouldn't know the difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500623</id>
	<title>This is just treating a symptom of the problem</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1246120740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just treating a symptom of the problem that people don't feel like they need to vote. We (I live in Canada) should really be doing more to make people feel that their vote counts, and that it is a person's duty to vote. Sure, voting through the internet may be easier, but it won't make people <b>want</b> to vote more.

</p><p>Why don't people vote anymore? My guess is our decentralized culture these days. In the past people got their news, entertainment, information, etc. from the same general sources -- usually local. Now everyone seeks everywhere for these things. When an election comes about, people don't even know who the candidates are let alone what are the issues at hand.

</p><p>We need to treat the source of the problem. We need to get people rallied (in a word) to vote. We need a centralized place where people, especially young people, can get information on the candidates, their parties, and the issues they  plan to attend to. Honestly, most of this information gets lost in today's culture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just treating a symptom of the problem that people do n't feel like they need to vote .
We ( I live in Canada ) should really be doing more to make people feel that their vote counts , and that it is a person 's duty to vote .
Sure , voting through the internet may be easier , but it wo n't make people want to vote more .
Why do n't people vote anymore ?
My guess is our decentralized culture these days .
In the past people got their news , entertainment , information , etc .
from the same general sources -- usually local .
Now everyone seeks everywhere for these things .
When an election comes about , people do n't even know who the candidates are let alone what are the issues at hand .
We need to treat the source of the problem .
We need to get people rallied ( in a word ) to vote .
We need a centralized place where people , especially young people , can get information on the candidates , their parties , and the issues they plan to attend to .
Honestly , most of this information gets lost in today 's culture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just treating a symptom of the problem that people don't feel like they need to vote.
We (I live in Canada) should really be doing more to make people feel that their vote counts, and that it is a person's duty to vote.
Sure, voting through the internet may be easier, but it won't make people want to vote more.
Why don't people vote anymore?
My guess is our decentralized culture these days.
In the past people got their news, entertainment, information, etc.
from the same general sources -- usually local.
Now everyone seeks everywhere for these things.
When an election comes about, people don't even know who the candidates are let alone what are the issues at hand.
We need to treat the source of the problem.
We need to get people rallied (in a word) to vote.
We need a centralized place where people, especially young people, can get information on the candidates, their parties, and the issues they  plan to attend to.
Honestly, most of this information gets lost in today's culture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502077</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>kvezach</author>
	<datestamp>1246184280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the Ukrainian behind Conficker, I think this is a really good idea. Go ahead! Make online voting, then I can sell votes on the black market in blocks of a thousand. Sure, the voter may think he votes for party X, but that's just a man in the middle - since I control the sucker's computer, I control what it shows on-screen, too.<br> <br>

As a partisan manager, I think this is a really good idea, too. Move voting online and I'll subtly hint to my employees to vote online, and from their work computers. Of course, I'll never blatantly threaten my workers, but the message I imply is clear: vote my way or you may find yourself passed up for promotion... or the next to go in a recession.<br> <br>

As an abusive husband or a mafia boss, I think this is even better of an idea. The wussies in paragraphs one and two can't use brute force. Well, I can! Vote my way, bitch!<br> <br>

As a black hat hacker, I enjoy the potential opportunities for employment^Wexploration. By its very nature, the online voting computers must be open to the internet. A zero-day later, and Vladimir Lenin wins the election... if I want to make a point. Otherwise, I'll just sell my "expertise" to the highest bidder. If nobody wants to buy, I'll crash the election for fun with a massive DDoS (note to self: contact the person in paragraph one).<br> <br>

(I'm sure you get the point by now.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the Ukrainian behind Conficker , I think this is a really good idea .
Go ahead !
Make online voting , then I can sell votes on the black market in blocks of a thousand .
Sure , the voter may think he votes for party X , but that 's just a man in the middle - since I control the sucker 's computer , I control what it shows on-screen , too .
As a partisan manager , I think this is a really good idea , too .
Move voting online and I 'll subtly hint to my employees to vote online , and from their work computers .
Of course , I 'll never blatantly threaten my workers , but the message I imply is clear : vote my way or you may find yourself passed up for promotion... or the next to go in a recession .
As an abusive husband or a mafia boss , I think this is even better of an idea .
The wussies in paragraphs one and two ca n't use brute force .
Well , I can !
Vote my way , bitch !
As a black hat hacker , I enjoy the potential opportunities for employment ^ Wexploration .
By its very nature , the online voting computers must be open to the internet .
A zero-day later , and Vladimir Lenin wins the election... if I want to make a point .
Otherwise , I 'll just sell my " expertise " to the highest bidder .
If nobody wants to buy , I 'll crash the election for fun with a massive DDoS ( note to self : contact the person in paragraph one ) .
( I 'm sure you get the point by now .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the Ukrainian behind Conficker, I think this is a really good idea.
Go ahead!
Make online voting, then I can sell votes on the black market in blocks of a thousand.
Sure, the voter may think he votes for party X, but that's just a man in the middle - since I control the sucker's computer, I control what it shows on-screen, too.
As a partisan manager, I think this is a really good idea, too.
Move voting online and I'll subtly hint to my employees to vote online, and from their work computers.
Of course, I'll never blatantly threaten my workers, but the message I imply is clear: vote my way or you may find yourself passed up for promotion... or the next to go in a recession.
As an abusive husband or a mafia boss, I think this is even better of an idea.
The wussies in paragraphs one and two can't use brute force.
Well, I can!
Vote my way, bitch!
As a black hat hacker, I enjoy the potential opportunities for employment^Wexploration.
By its very nature, the online voting computers must be open to the internet.
A zero-day later, and Vladimir Lenin wins the election... if I want to make a point.
Otherwise, I'll just sell my "expertise" to the highest bidder.
If nobody wants to buy, I'll crash the election for fun with a massive DDoS (note to self: contact the person in paragraph one).
(I'm sure you get the point by now.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503967</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this initiative goes ahead, I will consider taking out newspaper adds selling my vote to the highest bidder in protest of this fundamentally flawed idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this initiative goes ahead , I will consider taking out newspaper adds selling my vote to the highest bidder in protest of this fundamentally flawed idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this initiative goes ahead, I will consider taking out newspaper adds selling my vote to the highest bidder in protest of this fundamentally flawed idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</id>
	<title>Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years.  Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous.  The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.  I'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust, but the ability to vote online isn't going to fix the real problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing people to vote online is n't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years .
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years , which is pretty ridiculous .
The voters are tired of it , and they 're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote .
I 'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust , but the ability to vote online is n't going to fix the real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years.
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous.
The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.
I'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust, but the ability to vote online isn't going to fix the real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503553</id>
	<title>piratepartyofcanada.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246202100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>piratepartyofcanada.com<br>drop over have more of a say perhaps its time we had some new faces in parliament</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>piratepartyofcanada.comdrop over have more of a say perhaps its time we had some new faces in parliament</tokentext>
<sentencetext>piratepartyofcanada.comdrop over have more of a say perhaps its time we had some new faces in parliament</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504619</id>
	<title>Re:Votes can be coerced with guns.</title>
	<author>RobinH</author>
	<datestamp>1246210200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully, "sticking your head in the sand" is not considered a valid engineering method.  The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account.  The fact that you're naive doesn't mean we should all be naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , " sticking your head in the sand " is not considered a valid engineering method .
The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account .
The fact that you 're naive does n't mean we should all be naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, "sticking your head in the sand" is not considered a valid engineering method.
The system needs to take this kind of stuff into account.
The fact that you're naive doesn't mean we should all be naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500995</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.  It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.  Even online voting.</p><p>It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.  But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.</p></div><p>Technically maybe. But voter coercion is a hard problem. You can't check remotely whether the vote was forced while you can easily control it in the voting booth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy .
It really is , it 's a damn simple problem to solve .
Even online voting.It 's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor , and there should be a lesson in there for us .
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.Technically maybe .
But voter coercion is a hard problem .
You ca n't check remotely whether the vote was forced while you can easily control it in the voting booth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.
It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.
Even online voting.It's fucked up constantly by the processes we all abhor, and there should be a lesson in there for us.
But electronic voting is actually a very simple problem to solve.Technically maybe.
But voter coercion is a hard problem.
You can't check remotely whether the vote was forced while you can easily control it in the voting booth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500477</id>
	<title>member of the John Henry party</title>
	<author>jx100</author>
	<datestamp>1246119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't blame me, I voted for Cromartie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't blame me , I voted for Cromartie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't blame me, I voted for Cromartie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500405</id>
	<title>Poorest Turnout......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the summary doesn't tell you is that the "last election" came to be from the government at the time being dissolved by the Governor General.</p><p>It was not a regularly scheduled election (ie the current term was only approx half way through) and the general consensus was that it was a waste of tax-payers money and/or a political publicity stunt held by the opposing party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the summary does n't tell you is that the " last election " came to be from the government at the time being dissolved by the Governor General.It was not a regularly scheduled election ( ie the current term was only approx half way through ) and the general consensus was that it was a waste of tax-payers money and/or a political publicity stunt held by the opposing party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the summary doesn't tell you is that the "last election" came to be from the government at the time being dissolved by the Governor General.It was not a regularly scheduled election (ie the current term was only approx half way through) and the general consensus was that it was a waste of tax-payers money and/or a political publicity stunt held by the opposing party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504355</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1246208520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED.</i> <br> <br>The candidates, together with their diversity of views is probably the major factor. If "turnout" is really an important issue then it might make more sense to look at the nomination rules.<br>The other option is to put all the candidates on a "reality show" which also uses a "last man standing" method of voting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that " voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record " was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED .
The candidates , together with their diversity of views is probably the major factor .
If " turnout " is really an important issue then it might make more sense to look at the nomination rules.The other option is to put all the candidates on a " reality show " which also uses a " last man standing " method of voting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED.
The candidates, together with their diversity of views is probably the major factor.
If "turnout" is really an important issue then it might make more sense to look at the nomination rules.The other option is to put all the candidates on a "reality show" which also uses a "last man standing" method of voting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503291</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>canuck57</author>
	<datestamp>1246200060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DO NOT WANT</p></div><p>Well, I do want.  Having democracy evolve using on-line electronic voting, and perhaps voting more often is a good thing.  The fact that Diebold screwed up was likely sponsored to deter it.  Our masters as it stands get 4-5 year dictatorships and the last think they want is integrity in voting and a higher frequency of voting.  It is harder to corrupt 33M voters than than to corrupt 3 or 4 party leaders.</p><p>We need electronic voting.  Say a vote is electronically cast to 7 sites simultaneously.  Maybe include a few national TV stations, a university and different levels of governments.  Maybe even a taxpayer funded organization not answering to government.  Then when the poles close at 8pm, they reveal their vote counts at the same time.  All should agree.  And no chad under the electoral peoples desks as quite frankly I don't trust today's closed door counting system.</p><p>Then perhaps we could have elections every year.  That is so the politicians don't treat it like a term dictatorship only worrying about the constituents once every 4-5 years.  Or perhaps go once step further, let the people vote directly and have our representatives advise us.  It is much harder to corrupt millions of voters on say a GM bailout vote.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT WANTWell , I do want .
Having democracy evolve using on-line electronic voting , and perhaps voting more often is a good thing .
The fact that Diebold screwed up was likely sponsored to deter it .
Our masters as it stands get 4-5 year dictatorships and the last think they want is integrity in voting and a higher frequency of voting .
It is harder to corrupt 33M voters than than to corrupt 3 or 4 party leaders.We need electronic voting .
Say a vote is electronically cast to 7 sites simultaneously .
Maybe include a few national TV stations , a university and different levels of governments .
Maybe even a taxpayer funded organization not answering to government .
Then when the poles close at 8pm , they reveal their vote counts at the same time .
All should agree .
And no chad under the electoral peoples desks as quite frankly I do n't trust today 's closed door counting system.Then perhaps we could have elections every year .
That is so the politicians do n't treat it like a term dictatorship only worrying about the constituents once every 4-5 years .
Or perhaps go once step further , let the people vote directly and have our representatives advise us .
It is much harder to corrupt millions of voters on say a GM bailout vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT WANTWell, I do want.
Having democracy evolve using on-line electronic voting, and perhaps voting more often is a good thing.
The fact that Diebold screwed up was likely sponsored to deter it.
Our masters as it stands get 4-5 year dictatorships and the last think they want is integrity in voting and a higher frequency of voting.
It is harder to corrupt 33M voters than than to corrupt 3 or 4 party leaders.We need electronic voting.
Say a vote is electronically cast to 7 sites simultaneously.
Maybe include a few national TV stations, a university and different levels of governments.
Maybe even a taxpayer funded organization not answering to government.
Then when the poles close at 8pm, they reveal their vote counts at the same time.
All should agree.
And no chad under the electoral peoples desks as quite frankly I don't trust today's closed door counting system.Then perhaps we could have elections every year.
That is so the politicians don't treat it like a term dictatorship only worrying about the constituents once every 4-5 years.
Or perhaps go once step further, let the people vote directly and have our representatives advise us.
It is much harder to corrupt millions of voters on say a GM bailout vote.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503641</id>
	<title>Re:Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246202820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years. Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous. The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.</i></p><p>I doubt that's the cause of not voting. There has been a long term decline in voting numbers that predates the current round of minority governments.</p><p>With the rise of the Bloc, it will be extremely difficult for any party to form a majority government.</p><p>If enough of those non-voters came out to vote, things would be different. Look at polls of voters vs non-voters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing people to vote online is n't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years .
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years , which is pretty ridiculous .
The voters are tired of it , and they 're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.I doubt that 's the cause of not voting .
There has been a long term decline in voting numbers that predates the current round of minority governments.With the rise of the Bloc , it will be extremely difficult for any party to form a majority government.If enough of those non-voters came out to vote , things would be different .
Look at polls of voters vs non-voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years.
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous.
The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.I doubt that's the cause of not voting.
There has been a long term decline in voting numbers that predates the current round of minority governments.With the rise of the Bloc, it will be extremely difficult for any party to form a majority government.If enough of those non-voters came out to vote, things would be different.
Look at polls of voters vs non-voters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502263</id>
	<title>but wht abt te Amish?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But wht abt te Amish? They don use hitec. They r stil agrarian. They refus t use te internet, handys, etc. If they hav t vote online o electronic they wil refuse t vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But wht abt te Amish ?
They don use hitec .
They r stil agrarian .
They refus t use te internet , handys , etc .
If they hav t vote online o electronic they wil refuse t vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wht abt te Amish?
They don use hitec.
They r stil agrarian.
They refus t use te internet, handys, etc.
If they hav t vote online o electronic they wil refuse t vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500679</id>
	<title>Re:Poorest Turnout......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post contains one blatant falsehood and one technically true but extraordinarily misleading fact.  The election was called because Parliament(not the government) was dissolved by the Governor General.  However, all elections in Canada are called after Parliament is dissolved by the GG, so that was nothing new.  The GG had zero choice in the matter anyway, as the GG is required by constitutional convention to follow the "advice" of the Prime Minister of Canada.  It was the PM and the governing Conservatives who really called the election -- the GG dissolving Parliament is only a formality.  To blame it on the opposition is ridiculous and has no basis whatsoever in fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post contains one blatant falsehood and one technically true but extraordinarily misleading fact .
The election was called because Parliament ( not the government ) was dissolved by the Governor General .
However , all elections in Canada are called after Parliament is dissolved by the GG , so that was nothing new .
The GG had zero choice in the matter anyway , as the GG is required by constitutional convention to follow the " advice " of the Prime Minister of Canada .
It was the PM and the governing Conservatives who really called the election -- the GG dissolving Parliament is only a formality .
To blame it on the opposition is ridiculous and has no basis whatsoever in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post contains one blatant falsehood and one technically true but extraordinarily misleading fact.
The election was called because Parliament(not the government) was dissolved by the Governor General.
However, all elections in Canada are called after Parliament is dissolved by the GG, so that was nothing new.
The GG had zero choice in the matter anyway, as the GG is required by constitutional convention to follow the "advice" of the Prime Minister of Canada.
It was the PM and the governing Conservatives who really called the election -- the GG dissolving Parliament is only a formality.
To blame it on the opposition is ridiculous and has no basis whatsoever in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28514831</id>
	<title>As a Canadian...</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1246294020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had asked me this question say 10 or 12 years ago I would have jumped on the bandwagon and said "Fsck Ya!".</p><p>However upon thinking about it and seeing some of these sort of automated systems work in the meantime, would have to change my vote to "No Thanks".</p><p>In one corner you may get more people to vote, it might be more convenient, and results could be pretty much real time, all of which is kind of nice.</p><p>On the other side, there is just way too much potential for abuse.</p><p>Some have mentioned about coercion and votes and such, but that does not scare me as it would have to be at a scale to make it ridiculous to make any difference in the end result, and frankly if it does we have bigger problems. What would be more worrisome to me is electronic tampering to simply just change votes. With the paper system, you have actual evidence, that would be hard to duplicate. You have physical people, who are responsible for, and also there to take the blame for if things go bad at each particular level, which makes the system accountable. It also allows for an audit of the results, and an investigation.</p><p>So while there are some potential pluses to running an electronic system and perhaps someday we will, I would have to say that low tech is the right tech for something this important. I believe it will work in the future, but identification verification and auditing technologies would have to be more advanced to make it work. This is partially a technological issue, but I think even more so a social shift. We will reach some saturation point in technological integration of citizens and then it may be feasible, but I do not think we are there just yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had asked me this question say 10 or 12 years ago I would have jumped on the bandwagon and said " Fsck Ya !
" .However upon thinking about it and seeing some of these sort of automated systems work in the meantime , would have to change my vote to " No Thanks " .In one corner you may get more people to vote , it might be more convenient , and results could be pretty much real time , all of which is kind of nice.On the other side , there is just way too much potential for abuse.Some have mentioned about coercion and votes and such , but that does not scare me as it would have to be at a scale to make it ridiculous to make any difference in the end result , and frankly if it does we have bigger problems .
What would be more worrisome to me is electronic tampering to simply just change votes .
With the paper system , you have actual evidence , that would be hard to duplicate .
You have physical people , who are responsible for , and also there to take the blame for if things go bad at each particular level , which makes the system accountable .
It also allows for an audit of the results , and an investigation.So while there are some potential pluses to running an electronic system and perhaps someday we will , I would have to say that low tech is the right tech for something this important .
I believe it will work in the future , but identification verification and auditing technologies would have to be more advanced to make it work .
This is partially a technological issue , but I think even more so a social shift .
We will reach some saturation point in technological integration of citizens and then it may be feasible , but I do not think we are there just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had asked me this question say 10 or 12 years ago I would have jumped on the bandwagon and said "Fsck Ya!
".However upon thinking about it and seeing some of these sort of automated systems work in the meantime, would have to change my vote to "No Thanks".In one corner you may get more people to vote, it might be more convenient, and results could be pretty much real time, all of which is kind of nice.On the other side, there is just way too much potential for abuse.Some have mentioned about coercion and votes and such, but that does not scare me as it would have to be at a scale to make it ridiculous to make any difference in the end result, and frankly if it does we have bigger problems.
What would be more worrisome to me is electronic tampering to simply just change votes.
With the paper system, you have actual evidence, that would be hard to duplicate.
You have physical people, who are responsible for, and also there to take the blame for if things go bad at each particular level, which makes the system accountable.
It also allows for an audit of the results, and an investigation.So while there are some potential pluses to running an electronic system and perhaps someday we will, I would have to say that low tech is the right tech for something this important.
I believe it will work in the future, but identification verification and auditing technologies would have to be more advanced to make it work.
This is partially a technological issue, but I think even more so a social shift.
We will reach some saturation point in technological integration of citizens and then it may be feasible, but I do not think we are there just yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503333</id>
	<title>Sure.</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1246200420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can file my taxes online. This is nearly as important on an individual basis as voting as far as privacy and security of the information is concerned. Nearly all Canadians file their taxes online, have for years. I don't know anyone who would be opposed to online voting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can file my taxes online .
This is nearly as important on an individual basis as voting as far as privacy and security of the information is concerned .
Nearly all Canadians file their taxes online , have for years .
I do n't know anyone who would be opposed to online voting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can file my taxes online.
This is nearly as important on an individual basis as voting as far as privacy and security of the information is concerned.
Nearly all Canadians file their taxes online, have for years.
I don't know anyone who would be opposed to online voting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503</id>
	<title>Stupid, stupid, stupid idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why make it:<p>
1) easier for the apathetic (and likely uninformed) to vote?</p><p>
2) easier to hack an election?
</p><p>
No good reason.  It's just a stupid idea all around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why make it : 1 ) easier for the apathetic ( and likely uninformed ) to vote ?
2 ) easier to hack an election ?
No good reason .
It 's just a stupid idea all around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why make it:
1) easier for the apathetic (and likely uninformed) to vote?
2) easier to hack an election?
No good reason.
It's just a stupid idea all around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500775</id>
	<title>What's the worst that can happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're still under the Queen, aren't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're still under the Queen , are n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're still under the Queen, aren't they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501985</id>
	<title>What if they did this in IRAN???</title>
	<author>alsmair</author>
	<datestamp>1246182720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>in Canada it would be such a gr8 experience . imagine they have onlince voting system in iran with the current Dictator    . am sure he would make it up to 00100.9\% .</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Canada it would be such a gr8 experience .
imagine they have onlince voting system in iran with the current Dictator .
am sure he would make it up to 00100.9 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in Canada it would be such a gr8 experience .
imagine they have onlince voting system in iran with the current Dictator    .
am sure he would make it up to 00100.9\% .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504387</id>
	<title>Re:Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years. <strong>Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous</strong>. The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote. I'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust, but the ability to vote online isn't going to fix the real problem.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>Indeed. We have so many elections because the last three governments are minority governments. Why is that?</p><p>Because of the <a href="http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/" title="blocquebecois.org">Bloc Qu&eacute;b&eacute;cois</a> [blocquebecois.org]. Ever since Charlottetown, the last attempt to have Qu&eacute;bec ratify the Constitution, failed, Qu&eacute;bec has finally realized that the federal political parties have nothing to offer us.</p><p>So, we&rsquo;ve been voting bloc. The federal parties are being denied a whole province, which holds 25\% of the canadian population.</p><p>That 25\% of the population has been denied the proper attention given to other english provinces; in fact, we are treated the same way blacks are treated in the US. We are &ldquo;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_Niggers\_of\_America" title="wikipedia.org">the white niggers of america</a> [wikipedia.org]&rdquo;.</p><p>For about 10 years, the liberals were able to secure solid majorities despite the Bloc because were still reeling from Mulroney&rsquo;s conservative excesses (which have resulted with the tories ending up with 111 less seats in parliament once the 1993 election was over &mdash; yes, you read me properly, that&rsquo;s a hundred and eleven times; from 222 to 2), but the latest liberal scandals have caught up with them, and have prevented them from mustering enough support to, have a majority government. </p><p>And the Bloc is still there to say to Canada &ldquo;it&rsquo;s time to start to listen to Qu&eacute;bec&rdquo;.</p><p>And as long as Canada will not listen to Qu&eacute;bec, we will make sure that the House of Commons will be deprived of a majority government.</p><p>Though fucking noogies. You thought you could get away with not listening to Qu&eacute;bec? Well, that time is over Canada.</p><p>Fuck you very much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allowing people to vote online is n't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years .
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years , which is pretty ridiculous .
The voters are tired of it , and they 're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote .
I 'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust , but the ability to vote online is n't going to fix the real problem .
Indeed. We have so many elections because the last three governments are minority governments .
Why is that ? Because of the Bloc Qu   b   cois [ blocquebecois.org ] .
Ever since Charlottetown , the last attempt to have Qu   bec ratify the Constitution , failed , Qu   bec has finally realized that the federal political parties have nothing to offer us.So , we    ve been voting bloc .
The federal parties are being denied a whole province , which holds 25 \ % of the canadian population.That 25 \ % of the population has been denied the proper attention given to other english provinces ; in fact , we are treated the same way blacks are treated in the US .
We are    the white niggers of america [ wikipedia.org ]    .For about 10 years , the liberals were able to secure solid majorities despite the Bloc because were still reeling from Mulroney    s conservative excesses ( which have resulted with the tories ending up with 111 less seats in parliament once the 1993 election was over    yes , you read me properly , that    s a hundred and eleven times ; from 222 to 2 ) , but the latest liberal scandals have caught up with them , and have prevented them from mustering enough support to , have a majority government .
And the Bloc is still there to say to Canada    it    s time to start to listen to Qu   bec    .And as long as Canada will not listen to Qu   bec , we will make sure that the House of Commons will be deprived of a majority government.Though fucking noogies .
You thought you could get away with not listening to Qu   bec ?
Well , that time is over Canada.Fuck you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Allowing people to vote online isn't going to solve the turnout problem as long as we have a federal election every couple of years.
Canada has had something like four federal elections in the last five years, which is pretty ridiculous.
The voters are tired of it, and they're demonstrating that by not bothering to vote.
I'm not saying this is the best way to demonstrate disgust, but the ability to vote online isn't going to fix the real problem.
Indeed. We have so many elections because the last three governments are minority governments.
Why is that?Because of the Bloc Québécois [blocquebecois.org].
Ever since Charlottetown, the last attempt to have Québec ratify the Constitution, failed, Québec has finally realized that the federal political parties have nothing to offer us.So, we’ve been voting bloc.
The federal parties are being denied a whole province, which holds 25\% of the canadian population.That 25\% of the population has been denied the proper attention given to other english provinces; in fact, we are treated the same way blacks are treated in the US.
We are “the white niggers of america [wikipedia.org]”.For about 10 years, the liberals were able to secure solid majorities despite the Bloc because were still reeling from Mulroney’s conservative excesses (which have resulted with the tories ending up with 111 less seats in parliament once the 1993 election was over — yes, you read me properly, that’s a hundred and eleven times; from 222 to 2), but the latest liberal scandals have caught up with them, and have prevented them from mustering enough support to, have a majority government.
And the Bloc is still there to say to Canada “it’s time to start to listen to Québec”.And as long as Canada will not listen to Québec, we will make sure that the House of Commons will be deprived of a majority government.Though fucking noogies.
You thought you could get away with not listening to Québec?
Well, that time is over Canada.Fuck you very much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502825</id>
	<title>Re:4chan would rig it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246195380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't we just have a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/11/17/bc\_dorisday001116.html" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">referendum to get the party leader change their first name to Doris</a> [www.cbc.ca]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't we just have a referendum to get the party leader change their first name to Doris [ www.cbc.ca ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't we just have a referendum to get the party leader change their first name to Doris [www.cbc.ca]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502903</id>
	<title>Only hope...</title>
	<author>Pederson</author>
	<datestamp>1246196100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although I see many (obvious) problems with this system. It's out only way to get Harper the fuck out there. Seriously, I'm ashamed of my country, how it's changing, and who's running it more and more every day. Canada isn't Canada anymore - not as long as Harper (and his Government) reign.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I see many ( obvious ) problems with this system .
It 's out only way to get Harper the fuck out there .
Seriously , I 'm ashamed of my country , how it 's changing , and who 's running it more and more every day .
Canada is n't Canada anymore - not as long as Harper ( and his Government ) reign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I see many (obvious) problems with this system.
It's out only way to get Harper the fuck out there.
Seriously, I'm ashamed of my country, how it's changing, and who's running it more and more every day.
Canada isn't Canada anymore - not as long as Harper (and his Government) reign.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500661</id>
	<title>we trust our money online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and let me tell you, our money is far more attractive to criminals than our votes will ever be.</p><p>will online voting increase voter participation? not likely in the long run. will making people feel that they are actually being represented and having their voice heard increase participation? most likely yes.</p><p>we've had paper ballots for decades and decades, it's doubtful that the method of voting is causing the problem here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and let me tell you , our money is far more attractive to criminals than our votes will ever be.will online voting increase voter participation ?
not likely in the long run .
will making people feel that they are actually being represented and having their voice heard increase participation ?
most likely yes.we 've had paper ballots for decades and decades , it 's doubtful that the method of voting is causing the problem here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and let me tell you, our money is far more attractive to criminals than our votes will ever be.will online voting increase voter participation?
not likely in the long run.
will making people feel that they are actually being represented and having their voice heard increase participation?
most likely yes.we've had paper ballots for decades and decades, it's doubtful that the method of voting is causing the problem here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343</id>
	<title>As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1246118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DO NOT WANT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT WANT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT WANT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500421</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246119120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, genius, if it's so simple for you, then how exactly do you solve the problem of fraud?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , genius , if it 's so simple for you , then how exactly do you solve the problem of fraud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, genius, if it's so simple for you, then how exactly do you solve the problem of fraud?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503603</id>
	<title>Young voters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246202520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a young Canadian, I can say that there is no party that even remotely has policies close to my own beliefs and anyone that would have the same view on issues either would be an independent or belong to a party that doesn't stand a chance of running things. For a while this kept me from voting at all, until recently I realized if everyone felt that way and never bothered voting, nothing would ever change, so I started showing up, waiting in the long line and casting a vote. Every time I've voted, my candidate has lost, which is somewhat disheartening, but maybe eventually more peopel of my viewpoint will start voting and things will slowly change.</p><p>As for online voting, you'll see more young people vote as the hassle and time away from your own personal life won't be as interrupted as it is now. Security would have to be very thorough to ensure validity of votes.</p><p>The biggest issue in voter turnout though is that the candidates are most often not worth voting for. The individual representative is irrelevant in the big picture as party politics rule all and when a MP votes their own mind, they are swiftly removed from the party and then sit as an independent with next to no say. First time MP's have said that they were appalled at the state of the legislature.</p><p>The system is broken, the candidates are broken. We need a complete purge and overhaul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a young Canadian , I can say that there is no party that even remotely has policies close to my own beliefs and anyone that would have the same view on issues either would be an independent or belong to a party that does n't stand a chance of running things .
For a while this kept me from voting at all , until recently I realized if everyone felt that way and never bothered voting , nothing would ever change , so I started showing up , waiting in the long line and casting a vote .
Every time I 've voted , my candidate has lost , which is somewhat disheartening , but maybe eventually more peopel of my viewpoint will start voting and things will slowly change.As for online voting , you 'll see more young people vote as the hassle and time away from your own personal life wo n't be as interrupted as it is now .
Security would have to be very thorough to ensure validity of votes.The biggest issue in voter turnout though is that the candidates are most often not worth voting for .
The individual representative is irrelevant in the big picture as party politics rule all and when a MP votes their own mind , they are swiftly removed from the party and then sit as an independent with next to no say .
First time MP 's have said that they were appalled at the state of the legislature.The system is broken , the candidates are broken .
We need a complete purge and overhaul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a young Canadian, I can say that there is no party that even remotely has policies close to my own beliefs and anyone that would have the same view on issues either would be an independent or belong to a party that doesn't stand a chance of running things.
For a while this kept me from voting at all, until recently I realized if everyone felt that way and never bothered voting, nothing would ever change, so I started showing up, waiting in the long line and casting a vote.
Every time I've voted, my candidate has lost, which is somewhat disheartening, but maybe eventually more peopel of my viewpoint will start voting and things will slowly change.As for online voting, you'll see more young people vote as the hassle and time away from your own personal life won't be as interrupted as it is now.
Security would have to be very thorough to ensure validity of votes.The biggest issue in voter turnout though is that the candidates are most often not worth voting for.
The individual representative is irrelevant in the big picture as party politics rule all and when a MP votes their own mind, they are swiftly removed from the party and then sit as an independent with next to no say.
First time MP's have said that they were appalled at the state of the legislature.The system is broken, the candidates are broken.
We need a complete purge and overhaul.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500951</id>
	<title>postal vote</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1246123680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you've been able to vote via post for years. explain who this is any less secure?</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 've been able to vote via post for years .
explain who this is any less secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you've been able to vote via post for years.
explain who this is any less secure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504741</id>
	<title>Re:Sure.</title>
	<author>RobinH</author>
	<datestamp>1246210860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid. With banking, both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions, and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you. This is because the bank (and the tax department) actually maintain a link between you and your account. However, a voting system simply cannot maintain a link between the voter and vote cast. Therefore, there's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted, unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole. The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent, and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of. There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid .
With banking , both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions , and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you .
This is because the bank ( and the tax department ) actually maintain a link between you and your account .
However , a voting system simply can not maintain a link between the voter and vote cast .
Therefore , there 's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted , unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole .
The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent , and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of .
There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid.
With banking, both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions, and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you.
This is because the bank (and the tax department) actually maintain a link between you and your account.
However, a voting system simply cannot maintain a link between the voter and vote cast.
Therefore, there's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted, unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole.
The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent, and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of.
There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510937</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246306920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banks manage to safely handle your money online.</p><p>So it's possible to do this safely. A paper trail is vital.</p><p>But to take it to the next step, let's do this.</p><p>Encourage voters to participate in fake elections every month. They will receive in the mail the outcome of their vote. If it is not correct, they can login and report it.</p><p>The software would be open source.</p><p>Also, on every month of fake testing, make it perfectly legal to DDOS and hack the site, as long as you then submit a form reporting the details of the attack and the results.</p><p>and run tests for 2 years before you actually use it in a real election.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banks manage to safely handle your money online.So it 's possible to do this safely .
A paper trail is vital.But to take it to the next step , let 's do this.Encourage voters to participate in fake elections every month .
They will receive in the mail the outcome of their vote .
If it is not correct , they can login and report it.The software would be open source.Also , on every month of fake testing , make it perfectly legal to DDOS and hack the site , as long as you then submit a form reporting the details of the attack and the results.and run tests for 2 years before you actually use it in a real election .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banks manage to safely handle your money online.So it's possible to do this safely.
A paper trail is vital.But to take it to the next step, let's do this.Encourage voters to participate in fake elections every month.
They will receive in the mail the outcome of their vote.
If it is not correct, they can login and report it.The software would be open source.Also, on every month of fake testing, make it perfectly legal to DDOS and hack the site, as long as you then submit a form reporting the details of the attack and the results.and run tests for 2 years before you actually use it in a real election.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513417</id>
	<title>Politicians are afraid of the power they will lose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246287180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once this starts, all sorts of issues will occur via immediate votings. Think referendums. Politiicians lose too much power and frankly hate direct democracy, as they become disintermediated.</p><p>So they will fight this to the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once this starts , all sorts of issues will occur via immediate votings .
Think referendums .
Politiicians lose too much power and frankly hate direct democracy , as they become disintermediated.So they will fight this to the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once this starts, all sorts of issues will occur via immediate votings.
Think referendums.
Politiicians lose too much power and frankly hate direct democracy, as they become disintermediated.So they will fight this to the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500815</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1246122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insecure voting isn't being able to change a vote or two and be a slight annoyance. It's being able to change tens or hundreds of thousands or more and actually affect the results. And doing that in real life requires a <b>lot</b> more resources and it's a lot harder to avoid getting noticed doing it.</p><blockquote><div><p>We need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public (like the one we currently have) with regards to policy, quickly and efficiently.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps, but this isn't it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insecure voting is n't being able to change a vote or two and be a slight annoyance .
It 's being able to change tens or hundreds of thousands or more and actually affect the results .
And doing that in real life requires a lot more resources and it 's a lot harder to avoid getting noticed doing it.We need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public ( like the one we currently have ) with regards to policy , quickly and efficiently.Perhaps , but this is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insecure voting isn't being able to change a vote or two and be a slight annoyance.
It's being able to change tens or hundreds of thousands or more and actually affect the results.
And doing that in real life requires a lot more resources and it's a lot harder to avoid getting noticed doing it.We need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public (like the one we currently have) with regards to policy, quickly and efficiently.Perhaps, but this isn't it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975</id>
	<title>Re:Not a horrible idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heh!</p><p>let me tell you about europe, specifically germany.<br>we don't have the idiotic two party system of the states or britain. hell, jump the 5\% and you're in.</p><p>we all know politicians lie when they open their mouths. but nowadays, it seems, they aren't even trying to appear in the light of being the representatives of the people. more bs followed by even more bs. kill civil rights, kill social benefits, 'let the rich eat em all!'.</p><p>couple weeks back we had the european election here in germany. I really wanted to vote - really really did. but between the usual 5 suspects that have been conning us for the past 5-50 years and the new hardliners who just want to become part of the so-called 'elite' - it's all one big vote for "fuck you and bend over, dear tax-payer!".</p><p>maybe the people in canada aren't too lazy to vote - they might just be pissed off with the scum running the place.</p><p>"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order." - Ed Howdershelt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heh ! let me tell you about europe , specifically germany.we do n't have the idiotic two party system of the states or britain .
hell , jump the 5 \ % and you 're in.we all know politicians lie when they open their mouths .
but nowadays , it seems , they are n't even trying to appear in the light of being the representatives of the people .
more bs followed by even more bs .
kill civil rights , kill social benefits , 'let the rich eat em all !
'.couple weeks back we had the european election here in germany .
I really wanted to vote - really really did .
but between the usual 5 suspects that have been conning us for the past 5-50 years and the new hardliners who just want to become part of the so-called 'elite ' - it 's all one big vote for " fuck you and bend over , dear tax-payer !
" .maybe the people in canada are n't too lazy to vote - they might just be pissed off with the scum running the place .
" There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty : soap , ballot , jury , ammo .
Use in that order .
" - Ed Howdershelt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh!let me tell you about europe, specifically germany.we don't have the idiotic two party system of the states or britain.
hell, jump the 5\% and you're in.we all know politicians lie when they open their mouths.
but nowadays, it seems, they aren't even trying to appear in the light of being the representatives of the people.
more bs followed by even more bs.
kill civil rights, kill social benefits, 'let the rich eat em all!
'.couple weeks back we had the european election here in germany.
I really wanted to vote - really really did.
but between the usual 5 suspects that have been conning us for the past 5-50 years and the new hardliners who just want to become part of the so-called 'elite' - it's all one big vote for "fuck you and bend over, dear tax-payer!
".maybe the people in canada aren't too lazy to vote - they might just be pissed off with the scum running the place.
"There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo.
Use in that order.
" - Ed Howdershelt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469</id>
	<title>Problem is...can't validate the on-line votes</title>
	<author>Darkk</author>
	<datestamp>1246119540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is the internet is worldwide medium.  Accounts can be hacked or spoofed.  Also the votes must be verified by hand.  How are they gonna do that when it's all electronic with no paper trail?</p><p>It won't work.  American public won't trust it and won't be for a very long time.  Nothing is hacker-proof, I don't care how hard they tried to make it cracker-proof.. It won't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is the internet is worldwide medium .
Accounts can be hacked or spoofed .
Also the votes must be verified by hand .
How are they gon na do that when it 's all electronic with no paper trail ? It wo n't work .
American public wo n't trust it and wo n't be for a very long time .
Nothing is hacker-proof , I do n't care how hard they tried to make it cracker-proof.. It wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is the internet is worldwide medium.
Accounts can be hacked or spoofed.
Also the votes must be verified by hand.
How are they gonna do that when it's all electronic with no paper trail?It won't work.
American public won't trust it and won't be for a very long time.
Nothing is hacker-proof, I don't care how hard they tried to make it cracker-proof.. It won't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503863</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1246204860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's hard enough to have free and fair elections with paper ballots. As we have seen before voting machines are much more difficult to make secure against error and fraud and on-line voting would probably be even less secure. Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others. (To paraphrase W.S. Churchill).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's hard enough to have free and fair elections with paper ballots .
As we have seen before voting machines are much more difficult to make secure against error and fraud and on-line voting would probably be even less secure .
Democracy is the worst system of government , except for all the others .
( To paraphrase W.S .
Churchill ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's hard enough to have free and fair elections with paper ballots.
As we have seen before voting machines are much more difficult to make secure against error and fraud and on-line voting would probably be even less secure.
Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others.
(To paraphrase W.S.
Churchill).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500825</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>soda160289</author>
	<datestamp>1246122360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Canada would have the best voter turn out in history at 142\%!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada would have the best voter turn out in history at 142 \ % !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada would have the best voter turn out in history at 142\%!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500569</id>
	<title>WTF is going on with the formatting???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Headlines are not showing up and the comments are completely unnavigable due to this bullshit.  WTF is wrong with you nerd-holes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Headlines are not showing up and the comments are completely unnavigable due to this bullshit .
WTF is wrong with you nerd-holes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Headlines are not showing up and the comments are completely unnavigable due to this bullshit.
WTF is wrong with you nerd-holes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504527</id>
	<title>Re:Not a horrible idea...</title>
	<author>RobinH</author>
	<datestamp>1246209660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a horrible idea.  Look at the technology stack required to accomplish online voting:</p><p>Server: hardware, operating system, web server, database, etc.<br>Network: internet service providers (both ends of the connection), routers, DNS, etc.<br>Client: hardware, operating system, web browser, etc.</p><p>You could introduce attacks at any place.  Just take a moment and think about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking" title="wikipedia.org">Clickjacking</a> [wikipedia.org].  Some malicious website could load software on tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians' computers that overlays a transparent page on top of the Elections Canada voting page and changes your vote, or records who you voted for.</p><p>Not to mention email scams that claim to be Elections Canada and get you to enter you username and password, then go and place your vote before you do.</p><p>With the history of horrible, horrible, horrible security on the internet, I can't believe they're even considering this.</p><p>Trying to compare it to online banking just isn't a fair comparison either.  With a bank, you get to keep a history of your transactions, and so does the bank.  In fact, they can actually identify you with your account.  Voting is fundamentally different.  We can't allow anyone to be able to associate a vote with a voter after it has been cast.  Therefore there is no way for a voter to go back and check that their individual vote is counted.  Therefore, the system has to be transparent, and I can't think of a less transparent system than online voting.</p><p>I am a computer engineer, and there's no way I would ever trust such a system given current technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a horrible idea .
Look at the technology stack required to accomplish online voting : Server : hardware , operating system , web server , database , etc.Network : internet service providers ( both ends of the connection ) , routers , DNS , etc.Client : hardware , operating system , web browser , etc.You could introduce attacks at any place .
Just take a moment and think about Clickjacking [ wikipedia.org ] .
Some malicious website could load software on tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians ' computers that overlays a transparent page on top of the Elections Canada voting page and changes your vote , or records who you voted for.Not to mention email scams that claim to be Elections Canada and get you to enter you username and password , then go and place your vote before you do.With the history of horrible , horrible , horrible security on the internet , I ca n't believe they 're even considering this.Trying to compare it to online banking just is n't a fair comparison either .
With a bank , you get to keep a history of your transactions , and so does the bank .
In fact , they can actually identify you with your account .
Voting is fundamentally different .
We ca n't allow anyone to be able to associate a vote with a voter after it has been cast .
Therefore there is no way for a voter to go back and check that their individual vote is counted .
Therefore , the system has to be transparent , and I ca n't think of a less transparent system than online voting.I am a computer engineer , and there 's no way I would ever trust such a system given current technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a horrible idea.
Look at the technology stack required to accomplish online voting:Server: hardware, operating system, web server, database, etc.Network: internet service providers (both ends of the connection), routers, DNS, etc.Client: hardware, operating system, web browser, etc.You could introduce attacks at any place.
Just take a moment and think about Clickjacking [wikipedia.org].
Some malicious website could load software on tens or hundreds of thousands of Canadians' computers that overlays a transparent page on top of the Elections Canada voting page and changes your vote, or records who you voted for.Not to mention email scams that claim to be Elections Canada and get you to enter you username and password, then go and place your vote before you do.With the history of horrible, horrible, horrible security on the internet, I can't believe they're even considering this.Trying to compare it to online banking just isn't a fair comparison either.
With a bank, you get to keep a history of your transactions, and so does the bank.
In fact, they can actually identify you with your account.
Voting is fundamentally different.
We can't allow anyone to be able to associate a vote with a voter after it has been cast.
Therefore there is no way for a voter to go back and check that their individual vote is counted.
Therefore, the system has to be transparent, and I can't think of a less transparent system than online voting.I am a computer engineer, and there's no way I would ever trust such a system given current technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks. Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else. The 80 yr old guy that does the "security" check is a joke. Much less secure than say... online banking. If I showed up at a bank and got a similar "security" check I would already have cleaned out all your accounts. It is going to encourage Canadians out in the boons and young folks to vote.  F U C K Y E S</p><p>We need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public (like the one we currently have) with regards to policy, quickly and efficiently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks .
Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else .
The 80 yr old guy that does the " security " check is a joke .
Much less secure than say... online banking .
If I showed up at a bank and got a similar " security " check I would already have cleaned out all your accounts .
It is going to encourage Canadians out in the boons and young folks to vote .
F U C K Y E SWe need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public ( like the one we currently have ) with regards to policy , quickly and efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks.
Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else.
The 80 yr old guy that does the "security" check is a joke.
Much less secure than say... online banking.
If I showed up at a bank and got a similar "security" check I would already have cleaned out all your accounts.
It is going to encourage Canadians out in the boons and young folks to vote.
F U C K Y E SWe need a system in place to boot governments that are not representing the public (like the one we currently have) with regards to policy, quickly and efficiently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501087</id>
	<title>There is no one to vote for, nothing to vote for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246124940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only good party worth voting for was the Progressive Conservative, which is no longer around.</p><p>The Green Party was ok, based on their FOSS policy, than in the last two elections they ran former Microsoft employees, or spouses of Microsoft employees.  Their policy around freedom was good, than it went to non-existing.</p><p>The Liberals in the 90s took away everyone's freedom, and Allan Rock ensure Police could use 'Public Safety' as a reason to issue and excute warrants.  These warrants could be issues at any time by any judge based on evidence which is with held from the person they search their home of for 90 days.  The items seized with the search warrant can be autioned off after 90 days since the no notification is needed to be provided to the person they took the items from.</p><p>Various other '911' type laws were passed by the Liberals in the 90s, for example being a legal firearm owner, you automaticly provide premission to the Police to search your home 24/7.  Having a firearm license also allows the Police to contact your friends, family and neighbours about your activities and lifestyle.  Their homes can also be searched if your firearms are not home when the Police search your home for the firearms.</p><p>The NDP is nothing more then whiney wannabe Liberals.  Mr. Broadbent, was their last good leader.</p><p>It would be nice if Canada had a Priate Party, or leaders like Mr McCain.  Canada needs a party to stand up and bring freedom back to Canadians.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good party worth voting for was the Progressive Conservative , which is no longer around.The Green Party was ok , based on their FOSS policy , than in the last two elections they ran former Microsoft employees , or spouses of Microsoft employees .
Their policy around freedom was good , than it went to non-existing.The Liberals in the 90s took away everyone 's freedom , and Allan Rock ensure Police could use 'Public Safety ' as a reason to issue and excute warrants .
These warrants could be issues at any time by any judge based on evidence which is with held from the person they search their home of for 90 days .
The items seized with the search warrant can be autioned off after 90 days since the no notification is needed to be provided to the person they took the items from.Various other '911 ' type laws were passed by the Liberals in the 90s , for example being a legal firearm owner , you automaticly provide premission to the Police to search your home 24/7 .
Having a firearm license also allows the Police to contact your friends , family and neighbours about your activities and lifestyle .
Their homes can also be searched if your firearms are not home when the Police search your home for the firearms.The NDP is nothing more then whiney wannabe Liberals .
Mr. Broadbent , was their last good leader.It would be nice if Canada had a Priate Party , or leaders like Mr McCain .
Canada needs a party to stand up and bring freedom back to Canadians .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good party worth voting for was the Progressive Conservative, which is no longer around.The Green Party was ok, based on their FOSS policy, than in the last two elections they ran former Microsoft employees, or spouses of Microsoft employees.
Their policy around freedom was good, than it went to non-existing.The Liberals in the 90s took away everyone's freedom, and Allan Rock ensure Police could use 'Public Safety' as a reason to issue and excute warrants.
These warrants could be issues at any time by any judge based on evidence which is with held from the person they search their home of for 90 days.
The items seized with the search warrant can be autioned off after 90 days since the no notification is needed to be provided to the person they took the items from.Various other '911' type laws were passed by the Liberals in the 90s, for example being a legal firearm owner, you automaticly provide premission to the Police to search your home 24/7.
Having a firearm license also allows the Police to contact your friends, family and neighbours about your activities and lifestyle.
Their homes can also be searched if your firearms are not home when the Police search your home for the firearms.The NDP is nothing more then whiney wannabe Liberals.
Mr. Broadbent, was their last good leader.It would be nice if Canada had a Priate Party, or leaders like Mr McCain.
Canada needs a party to stand up and bring freedom back to Canadians.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505503</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1246215600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; An enforced secret ballot (in the voting booth) hasn't exactly forestalled vote buying, or tomb-stoning.</p><p>If the secret ballot isn't enforced it is almost useless as a protection.  And voting in person in a booth can in theory prevent both problems whether mechanical or paper votes are cast.  Online voting is an open invitation to both problems exploding into major problems because the fraud isn't even possible to stop in theory.</p><p>Work it through.  If non-secret voting isn't considered the normal way of voting anyone opting to vote in secret has something to hide.  And as long as large numbers aren't voting in secret there are large numbers of votes available for purchase.</p><p>The problems with our current system are solvable.</p><p>1. Make absentee voting rare enough that it won't be likely to be abusable by making the process more difficult.</p><p>2. Get serious about checking photo ID and purging the registration rolls by cross linking databases to get rid of duplicate registrations and dead people.</p><p>As for low turnout I don't see a problem.  For years I have held the position that if you aren't willing to invest the time to be up to speed on the basic issues and candidates the best service you can render the Republic is to stay the hell out of a voting booth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; An enforced secret ballot ( in the voting booth ) has n't exactly forestalled vote buying , or tomb-stoning.If the secret ballot is n't enforced it is almost useless as a protection .
And voting in person in a booth can in theory prevent both problems whether mechanical or paper votes are cast .
Online voting is an open invitation to both problems exploding into major problems because the fraud is n't even possible to stop in theory.Work it through .
If non-secret voting is n't considered the normal way of voting anyone opting to vote in secret has something to hide .
And as long as large numbers are n't voting in secret there are large numbers of votes available for purchase.The problems with our current system are solvable.1 .
Make absentee voting rare enough that it wo n't be likely to be abusable by making the process more difficult.2 .
Get serious about checking photo ID and purging the registration rolls by cross linking databases to get rid of duplicate registrations and dead people.As for low turnout I do n't see a problem .
For years I have held the position that if you are n't willing to invest the time to be up to speed on the basic issues and candidates the best service you can render the Republic is to stay the hell out of a voting booth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; An enforced secret ballot (in the voting booth) hasn't exactly forestalled vote buying, or tomb-stoning.If the secret ballot isn't enforced it is almost useless as a protection.
And voting in person in a booth can in theory prevent both problems whether mechanical or paper votes are cast.
Online voting is an open invitation to both problems exploding into major problems because the fraud isn't even possible to stop in theory.Work it through.
If non-secret voting isn't considered the normal way of voting anyone opting to vote in secret has something to hide.
And as long as large numbers aren't voting in secret there are large numbers of votes available for purchase.The problems with our current system are solvable.1.
Make absentee voting rare enough that it won't be likely to be abusable by making the process more difficult.2.
Get serious about checking photo ID and purging the registration rolls by cross linking databases to get rid of duplicate registrations and dead people.As for low turnout I don't see a problem.
For years I have held the position that if you aren't willing to invest the time to be up to speed on the basic issues and candidates the best service you can render the Republic is to stay the hell out of a voting booth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503781</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>laird</author>
	<datestamp>1246204140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy. It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve. Even online voting."</p><p>Speaking as someone who has been involved in electronic voting for many years, this is a familiar claim made by people who haven't thought about voting. Yes, it looks easy to count votes, but it's hard to count votes in a way that leads to trustworthy elections.</p><p>Privacy is fundamental, because it prevents vote buying/coercion. It MUST be impossible for ANYONE to know how anyone else voted, even if the voter wants to let them. This is important because if it is possible to know how someone else votes, it is then possible to coerce them into voting "the right way". This is a real problem with mail-in ballots, which are a huge source of vote fraud now. This means that voters cannot retain a receipt for their votes. And it means that voter ID's cannot be known to the voting machine, and thus recorded in voting machine audit logs, so that individual votes cannot be reconstructed later.</p><p>Voter verification is important, of course, because only valid voters should be able to vote, and only once.</p><p>Transparency is also critical. That is, any interested party should be (at least in principle) able to observe the entire vote counting process without having to trust any "black box" process, software, etc.</p><p>Audibility is the basis of trusting the system. That is, it should be possible for an independent party to recount the voter-verified records of the votes (for an audit or recount) and achieve the same result as the official system.</p><p>There are some pretty obvious contradictions between the requirements, in the context of online voting. For example, you need to be able to verify voters, but are not allowed to know any unique identifier of voters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy .
It really is , it 's a damn simple problem to solve .
Even online voting .
" Speaking as someone who has been involved in electronic voting for many years , this is a familiar claim made by people who have n't thought about voting .
Yes , it looks easy to count votes , but it 's hard to count votes in a way that leads to trustworthy elections.Privacy is fundamental , because it prevents vote buying/coercion .
It MUST be impossible for ANYONE to know how anyone else voted , even if the voter wants to let them .
This is important because if it is possible to know how someone else votes , it is then possible to coerce them into voting " the right way " .
This is a real problem with mail-in ballots , which are a huge source of vote fraud now .
This means that voters can not retain a receipt for their votes .
And it means that voter ID 's can not be known to the voting machine , and thus recorded in voting machine audit logs , so that individual votes can not be reconstructed later.Voter verification is important , of course , because only valid voters should be able to vote , and only once.Transparency is also critical .
That is , any interested party should be ( at least in principle ) able to observe the entire vote counting process without having to trust any " black box " process , software , etc.Audibility is the basis of trusting the system .
That is , it should be possible for an independent party to recount the voter-verified records of the votes ( for an audit or recount ) and achieve the same result as the official system.There are some pretty obvious contradictions between the requirements , in the context of online voting .
For example , you need to be able to verify voters , but are not allowed to know any unique identifier of voters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.
It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.
Even online voting.
"Speaking as someone who has been involved in electronic voting for many years, this is a familiar claim made by people who haven't thought about voting.
Yes, it looks easy to count votes, but it's hard to count votes in a way that leads to trustworthy elections.Privacy is fundamental, because it prevents vote buying/coercion.
It MUST be impossible for ANYONE to know how anyone else voted, even if the voter wants to let them.
This is important because if it is possible to know how someone else votes, it is then possible to coerce them into voting "the right way".
This is a real problem with mail-in ballots, which are a huge source of vote fraud now.
This means that voters cannot retain a receipt for their votes.
And it means that voter ID's cannot be known to the voting machine, and thus recorded in voting machine audit logs, so that individual votes cannot be reconstructed later.Voter verification is important, of course, because only valid voters should be able to vote, and only once.Transparency is also critical.
That is, any interested party should be (at least in principle) able to observe the entire vote counting process without having to trust any "black box" process, software, etc.Audibility is the basis of trusting the system.
That is, it should be possible for an independent party to recount the voter-verified records of the votes (for an audit or recount) and achieve the same result as the official system.There are some pretty obvious contradictions between the requirements, in the context of online voting.
For example, you need to be able to verify voters, but are not allowed to know any unique identifier of voters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504707</id>
	<title>Re:before you knee-jerk</title>
	<author>RobinH</author>
	<datestamp>1246210680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid.  With banking, both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions, and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you.  This is because the bank (and the tax department) actually maintain a link between you and your account.  However, a voting system simply cannot maintain a link between the voter and vote cast.  Therefore, there's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted, unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole.  The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent, and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of.  There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid .
With banking , both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions , and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you .
This is because the bank ( and the tax department ) actually maintain a link between you and your account .
However , a voting system simply can not maintain a link between the voter and vote cast .
Therefore , there 's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted , unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole .
The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent , and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of .
There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This analogy is incorrect for the same reason that the analogy between online banking and voting is invalid.
With banking, both you and your bank maintain a separate record of transactions, and you can be certain at the end of the month whether the bank has the same record of transactions as you.
This is because the bank (and the tax department) actually maintain a link between you and your account.
However, a voting system simply cannot maintain a link between the voter and vote cast.
Therefore, there's no way for a voter to be sure that their vote was counted, unless they fundamentally trust the system as a whole.
The only way for people to trust the system is for it to be transparent, and online voting is about the least transparent system I can think of.
There are too many things in the technology stack between your screen and the server for you to be sure that the vote is recorded the way you think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500643</id>
	<title>Re:4chan would rig it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is pedobear going to be running for every seat? It'd truly be impressive to see one person occupy all 308 seats simultaneously.</p><p>(We don't directly vote for our PM in Canada, in case you didn't notice.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is pedobear going to be running for every seat ?
It 'd truly be impressive to see one person occupy all 308 seats simultaneously .
( We do n't directly vote for our PM in Canada , in case you did n't notice .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is pedobear going to be running for every seat?
It'd truly be impressive to see one person occupy all 308 seats simultaneously.
(We don't directly vote for our PM in Canada, in case you didn't notice.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504191</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1246207440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions (on the voting ballot) in the American presidential election of 2000. Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions, they created ballots that were ambiguous. </em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>On defective machines using a blatantly obsolete technology that often would not punch a clean hole, especially when operated by a senile geezer with no eyesight left whatsoever.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions ( on the voting ballot ) in the American presidential election of 2000 .
Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions , they created ballots that were ambiguous .
On defective machines using a blatantly obsolete technology that often would not punch a clean hole , especially when operated by a senile geezer with no eyesight left whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions (on the voting ballot) in the American presidential election of 2000.
Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions, they created ballots that were ambiguous.
On defective machines using a blatantly obsolete technology that often would not punch a clean hole, especially when operated by a senile geezer with no eyesight left whatsoever.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501263</id>
	<title>it's not like hand-counted is fair anyway</title>
	<author>suzerain</author>
	<datestamp>1246126620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
As the events in Iran show, hand-counted vote != fair vote.
</p><p>
I think, the older I get, I just come to the realization that the vote is really more about the appearance of actually having a say in your government.  The vote in Iran was probably rigged.  The 2004 U.S. election showed significant voting irregularity in several counties in New Mexico and Florida, in the case of the latter the bunk counties were apparently running the same type of machine (optical scanning).  It's pretty well accepted nowadays that JFK was voted in thanks to the mob rigging the election in Illinois.
</p><p>
The problem is, this is all impossible to prove...E.U. citizens, for example, think their vote is fair, but is it?  Was the Iran vote fair?  Who the hell really knows.
</p><p>
Therefore, I guess my point is, I don't really believe in the veracity or any vote, anywhere, anymore.
</p><p>
And even if the vote is counted accurately, we are all really just voting for the people that corporations and powerful people have pre-approved for us, since any true grassroots candidate will be either tarnished, destroyed, or assassinated before they have a chance at real power anyway.
</p><p>
So, armed with all those conclusions...sure, go ahead.  They might as well go ahead and make it so "my voice can be heard" (yeah, right), without making me walk down to the damned polling booth.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the events in Iran show , hand-counted vote ! = fair vote .
I think , the older I get , I just come to the realization that the vote is really more about the appearance of actually having a say in your government .
The vote in Iran was probably rigged .
The 2004 U.S. election showed significant voting irregularity in several counties in New Mexico and Florida , in the case of the latter the bunk counties were apparently running the same type of machine ( optical scanning ) .
It 's pretty well accepted nowadays that JFK was voted in thanks to the mob rigging the election in Illinois .
The problem is , this is all impossible to prove...E.U .
citizens , for example , think their vote is fair , but is it ?
Was the Iran vote fair ?
Who the hell really knows .
Therefore , I guess my point is , I do n't really believe in the veracity or any vote , anywhere , anymore .
And even if the vote is counted accurately , we are all really just voting for the people that corporations and powerful people have pre-approved for us , since any true grassroots candidate will be either tarnished , destroyed , or assassinated before they have a chance at real power anyway .
So , armed with all those conclusions...sure , go ahead .
They might as well go ahead and make it so " my voice can be heard " ( yeah , right ) , without making me walk down to the damned polling booth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
As the events in Iran show, hand-counted vote != fair vote.
I think, the older I get, I just come to the realization that the vote is really more about the appearance of actually having a say in your government.
The vote in Iran was probably rigged.
The 2004 U.S. election showed significant voting irregularity in several counties in New Mexico and Florida, in the case of the latter the bunk counties were apparently running the same type of machine (optical scanning).
It's pretty well accepted nowadays that JFK was voted in thanks to the mob rigging the election in Illinois.
The problem is, this is all impossible to prove...E.U.
citizens, for example, think their vote is fair, but is it?
Was the Iran vote fair?
Who the hell really knows.
Therefore, I guess my point is, I don't really believe in the veracity or any vote, anywhere, anymore.
And even if the vote is counted accurately, we are all really just voting for the people that corporations and powerful people have pre-approved for us, since any true grassroots candidate will be either tarnished, destroyed, or assassinated before they have a chance at real power anyway.
So, armed with all those conclusions...sure, go ahead.
They might as well go ahead and make it so "my voice can be heard" (yeah, right), without making me walk down to the damned polling booth.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500349</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1246118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All your ballot are belong to us!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All your ballot are belong to us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your ballot are belong to us!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28517461</id>
	<title>I think the gov'mnt is missing the point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246304340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the only reason there wasn't a big Canadian population for our last election, was because hardly anyone took it seriously. We had to go to the polls TWICE in a normal term, meanwhile being forced to choose between 5 parties whose representatives we weren't exactly too cheerful  about. It's not a question of unavailability- it's a question of indifference to the whole thing.</p><p>I am quite confident the next election will go much smoother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the only reason there was n't a big Canadian population for our last election , was because hardly anyone took it seriously .
We had to go to the polls TWICE in a normal term , meanwhile being forced to choose between 5 parties whose representatives we were n't exactly too cheerful about .
It 's not a question of unavailability- it 's a question of indifference to the whole thing.I am quite confident the next election will go much smoother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the only reason there wasn't a big Canadian population for our last election, was because hardly anyone took it seriously.
We had to go to the polls TWICE in a normal term, meanwhile being forced to choose between 5 parties whose representatives we weren't exactly too cheerful  about.
It's not a question of unavailability- it's a question of indifference to the whole thing.I am quite confident the next election will go much smoother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503077</id>
	<title>Re:Here's the thing...</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1246198020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy. It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve. Even online voting.</p></div><p>It is if you don't understand it.  Like most things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy .
It really is , it 's a damn simple problem to solve .
Even online voting.It is if you do n't understand it .
Like most things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kicker of all this electronic voting is that is easy.
It really is, it's a damn simple problem to solve.
Even online voting.It is if you don't understand it.
Like most things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359</id>
	<title>4chan would rig it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>4chan would rig it and have 7 billion people write in pedobear. Then they would convince a member to have his name legally registered as such and get plastic surgery to become a bear. Child porn, warez, and weird porn would be not only legalized, but taught in school and subsidized. Sad part is I think my oh so humorous prediction would be fairly accurate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>4chan would rig it and have 7 billion people write in pedobear .
Then they would convince a member to have his name legally registered as such and get plastic surgery to become a bear .
Child porn , warez , and weird porn would be not only legalized , but taught in school and subsidized .
Sad part is I think my oh so humorous prediction would be fairly accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4chan would rig it and have 7 billion people write in pedobear.
Then they would convince a member to have his name legally registered as such and get plastic surgery to become a bear.
Child porn, warez, and weird porn would be not only legalized, but taught in school and subsidized.
Sad part is I think my oh so humorous prediction would be fairly accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503699</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246203360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This one of the main reasons I support in-person voting.  Coercion in elections is almost non-existent because of the public nature of voting booths and the fact that ballots are usually not linked to a specific voter.  Voting in a private setting would create the highest possible level of coercion and likely fraud.  Auditing systems (read-only) should be taken online, but never ballot casting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one of the main reasons I support in-person voting .
Coercion in elections is almost non-existent because of the public nature of voting booths and the fact that ballots are usually not linked to a specific voter .
Voting in a private setting would create the highest possible level of coercion and likely fraud .
Auditing systems ( read-only ) should be taken online , but never ballot casting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one of the main reasons I support in-person voting.
Coercion in elections is almost non-existent because of the public nature of voting booths and the fact that ballots are usually not linked to a specific voter.
Voting in a private setting would create the highest possible level of coercion and likely fraud.
Auditing systems (read-only) should be taken online, but never ballot casting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502615</id>
	<title>Re:Canada's Voter Turn Out Problem</title>
	<author>ImOnlySleeping</author>
	<datestamp>1246192500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the current prime minister effectively convincing the electorate that a coalition government is some sort of dirty commie trick, except that a) it's legal and b) almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world requires coalitions to function at which point, people have to make compromises, which is the big problem with out current parties, they hate compromises.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the current prime minister effectively convincing the electorate that a coalition government is some sort of dirty commie trick , except that a ) it 's legal and b ) almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world requires coalitions to function at which point , people have to make compromises , which is the big problem with out current parties , they hate compromises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the current prime minister effectively convincing the electorate that a coalition government is some sort of dirty commie trick, except that a) it's legal and b) almost every other parliamentary democracy in the world requires coalitions to function at which point, people have to make compromises, which is the big problem with out current parties, they hate compromises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510307</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1246214760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will be the first to commend Canada for doing so. I applaud their initiative. I may not know many Canadians but I would venture a guess that most (read 99 percent) are extremely honest and would not try and screw around with the election process.</p><p>Americans are a *LOT* different than our friends from the North. I would be cautious oh sure but I would trust a Canadian voter judge over most American election judges. I am sure there are 1 or 2 rotten ones but compared to the thousands we have in the US.<br>That is a sad commentary on the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will be the first to commend Canada for doing so .
I applaud their initiative .
I may not know many Canadians but I would venture a guess that most ( read 99 percent ) are extremely honest and would not try and screw around with the election process.Americans are a * LOT * different than our friends from the North .
I would be cautious oh sure but I would trust a Canadian voter judge over most American election judges .
I am sure there are 1 or 2 rotten ones but compared to the thousands we have in the US.That is a sad commentary on the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will be the first to commend Canada for doing so.
I applaud their initiative.
I may not know many Canadians but I would venture a guess that most (read 99 percent) are extremely honest and would not try and screw around with the election process.Americans are a *LOT* different than our friends from the North.
I would be cautious oh sure but I would trust a Canadian voter judge over most American election judges.
I am sure there are 1 or 2 rotten ones but compared to the thousands we have in the US.That is a sad commentary on the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500685</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1246121280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, all counties in Washington state use all mail voting. I do believe that there is a vote in person option for disabilities, but that's it.<br> <br>

We just switched over completely a while back, I think the next election might be the first all mail vote here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , all counties in Washington state use all mail voting .
I do believe that there is a vote in person option for disabilities , but that 's it .
We just switched over completely a while back , I think the next election might be the first all mail vote here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, all counties in Washington state use all mail voting.
I do believe that there is a vote in person option for disabilities, but that's it.
We just switched over completely a while back, I think the next election might be the first all mail vote here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500727</id>
	<title>I'd like to see something financial</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246121520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so the financial network systems are pretty well trusted.  I wonder if we could use those as a means of voting?  Let's say we transfer $1 to or from an external account which automatically transfers that same amount back.  The account designated would be the candidate being voted for... well, no... that would eliminate "write-ins" wouldn't it.</p><p>The problem with online voting, which I seek to resolve in my mind, would be an effective way to track your vote and later prove your vote in the event of a recount.</p><p>The issue with electronic or even internet voting is the issue of accountability and traceability.  "Trust" is a result of either a history of reliability or a preponderance of evidence that the thing is worthy of trust.  We need the ability to verify a vote was recorded properly and that only proper votes were recorded.  If those can't be done with sufficient public trust, they shouldn't be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so the financial network systems are pretty well trusted .
I wonder if we could use those as a means of voting ?
Let 's say we transfer $ 1 to or from an external account which automatically transfers that same amount back .
The account designated would be the candidate being voted for... well , no... that would eliminate " write-ins " would n't it.The problem with online voting , which I seek to resolve in my mind , would be an effective way to track your vote and later prove your vote in the event of a recount.The issue with electronic or even internet voting is the issue of accountability and traceability .
" Trust " is a result of either a history of reliability or a preponderance of evidence that the thing is worthy of trust .
We need the ability to verify a vote was recorded properly and that only proper votes were recorded .
If those ca n't be done with sufficient public trust , they should n't be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so the financial network systems are pretty well trusted.
I wonder if we could use those as a means of voting?
Let's say we transfer $1 to or from an external account which automatically transfers that same amount back.
The account designated would be the candidate being voted for... well, no... that would eliminate "write-ins" wouldn't it.The problem with online voting, which I seek to resolve in my mind, would be an effective way to track your vote and later prove your vote in the event of a recount.The issue with electronic or even internet voting is the issue of accountability and traceability.
"Trust" is a result of either a history of reliability or a preponderance of evidence that the thing is worthy of trust.
We need the ability to verify a vote was recorded properly and that only proper votes were recorded.
If those can't be done with sufficient public trust, they shouldn't be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500549</id>
	<title>who counts the votes?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1246120140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>here you go:</p><p><a href="http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/big\_die/diebold\_1.jpg" title="mac.com">http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/big\_die/diebold\_1.jpg</a> [mac.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here you go : http : //homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/big \ _die/diebold \ _1.jpg [ mac.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here you go:http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/big\_die/diebold\_1.jpg [mac.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500887</id>
	<title>Compulsory voting, not online voting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why you need compulsory voting like Australia has. 95\% turnout. And our elections are less about partisanship and more about who's the best man for the job (or who is the lesser wanker).</p><p>Then again, America and Canada can't even manage proportional or preferential voting, and the Libertarians would go nuts about the extreme 'coercion' that is being forced to vote once every 3 or 4 years, so who am I kidding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why you need compulsory voting like Australia has .
95 \ % turnout .
And our elections are less about partisanship and more about who 's the best man for the job ( or who is the lesser wanker ) .Then again , America and Canada ca n't even manage proportional or preferential voting , and the Libertarians would go nuts about the extreme 'coercion ' that is being forced to vote once every 3 or 4 years , so who am I kidding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why you need compulsory voting like Australia has.
95\% turnout.
And our elections are less about partisanship and more about who's the best man for the job (or who is the lesser wanker).Then again, America and Canada can't even manage proportional or preferential voting, and the Libertarians would go nuts about the extreme 'coercion' that is being forced to vote once every 3 or 4 years, so who am I kidding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</id>
	<title>Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Voting <i>must</i> be anonymous and private. If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants. Yes, absentee ballots have the same problem, which is why I think Oregon's all-mail voting system is terribly dangerous. This vulnerability isn't theoretical: the scenario I describe <i>actually happened</i> throughout the 19th century and led to some very crooked elections. It's why we switched to a secret ballot in the 1880s. Let's not forget our history here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Voting must be anonymous and private .
If you allow online voting , then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $ 50 to vote the way he wants .
Yes , absentee ballots have the same problem , which is why I think Oregon 's all-mail voting system is terribly dangerous .
This vulnerability is n't theoretical : the scenario I describe actually happened throughout the 19th century and led to some very crooked elections .
It 's why we switched to a secret ballot in the 1880s .
Let 's not forget our history here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Voting must be anonymous and private.
If you allow online voting, then nothing prevents someone from standing over your shoulder and paying you $50 to vote the way he wants.
Yes, absentee ballots have the same problem, which is why I think Oregon's all-mail voting system is terribly dangerous.
This vulnerability isn't theoretical: the scenario I describe actually happened throughout the 19th century and led to some very crooked elections.
It's why we switched to a secret ballot in the 1880s.
Let's not forget our history here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500533</id>
	<title>totally BAD idea, and it won't fix the problem</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1246120020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it is online, it can be hacked and the data can be faked. Epic FAIL in the offing.
<p>
The problem of low voter turnout has to do with the nature of Canadian politics. The facts, for our dear American cousins south of the border who don't know what's going on with their single biggest trading partner:
</p><p>
It's a multiparty parliamentary system. There are two dominant parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, a very siginficant local collection of politics call the Bloc (from Quebec, and includes hardcore separatist groups), and a significant minority party, the lefty NDP. There is also a significant Green party presence, although they lost their seat last election.
</p><p>
The party in power is the conservative party. Whether your sentiments are conservative or not, (mine are not, but that's not relevant right here) doesn't change the fact that the leader, Stephen Harper, is an imbecile who has ineptly squandered every opportunity to get it right. I don't much care for the Conservative Party, but I feel really bad for them having such a dumb ass for a leader. It's kind of embarrassing. You have my sincere condolences.
</p><p>
The party in power (Conservative) is a Minority government, i.e., it rules without a majority in parliament.
</p><p>
The second party, the Liberal Party had an obtuse francophone for a leader, who lead the party to a completely uninspiring defeat at last election. His name was Dion, and he was a smart man with all the personality of a can of paint and all the media saavy of an average middle school student.
</p><p>
Harper, in a typical bullheaded move, pulled some shenanigans right after the election, and pissed off all the other parties, including the Bloc. So they agreed to form a coalition, which would have put Harper out on the street, and Dion (the man he just defeated) in as Prime Minister. This was obviously a very bad idea as the Conservatives hated Dion, and the Liberals weren't exactly effusive with praise. In fact, they were anxious to ditch his sorry ass ASAP. Rather than face an ignominious defeat at the hands of Dion, Harper drove his Waaaaahmbulance over to the governor General's office and weeped bitter tears to the Queen's representative, because, Canada is (in a few narrow ways) still a fucking colony and the Queen is technically the head of state. He begged her to prorogate parliament, and she rolled on it.
</p><p>
This left Canada without a functioning government at one of the most critical times in world history: the collapse of American Capitalism in winter 2008/9.
</p><p>
So, if something truly insane happened, there would be no deliberative body to make policy and pass law. A truly desperate and stupid move by Harper, who was already on the shitlist of the conservatives for failing to get a majority gov't, and on the permanent shitlist of all the other parties for, well, basically being a bit of a dick.
</p><p>
In  the process, the Liberals booted Dion and replaced him with a man named Ignatieff. Ignatieff is very smart, fairly slick, and every bit of a dick that Harper is, it's just that he has a few (if poorly implemented and largely hidden) scruples.
</p><p>
Who represents the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc is only of consequence to the constituents, as none will be a majority party any time soon.
</p><p>
So, now we're looking at another election, and it will likely be the third in 4 or so years. And my guess is it will have the same results as before. None.
</p><p>
The only thing that is likely to happen is the Liberals will take over with a minority government, and thusly be every bit as effective at governing this nation of cats as Harper, i.e, not at all.
</p><p>
So, this online voting boondoggle is jsut te latest drama in this soap opera of Canadian Politics.
</p><p>
tune in next week when they decide to ban beer, but only between 2 AM and 6 AM. Or something equally retarded.
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is online , it can be hacked and the data can be faked .
Epic FAIL in the offing .
The problem of low voter turnout has to do with the nature of Canadian politics .
The facts , for our dear American cousins south of the border who do n't know what 's going on with their single biggest trading partner : It 's a multiparty parliamentary system .
There are two dominant parties , the Conservatives and Liberals , a very siginficant local collection of politics call the Bloc ( from Quebec , and includes hardcore separatist groups ) , and a significant minority party , the lefty NDP .
There is also a significant Green party presence , although they lost their seat last election .
The party in power is the conservative party .
Whether your sentiments are conservative or not , ( mine are not , but that 's not relevant right here ) does n't change the fact that the leader , Stephen Harper , is an imbecile who has ineptly squandered every opportunity to get it right .
I do n't much care for the Conservative Party , but I feel really bad for them having such a dumb ass for a leader .
It 's kind of embarrassing .
You have my sincere condolences .
The party in power ( Conservative ) is a Minority government , i.e. , it rules without a majority in parliament .
The second party , the Liberal Party had an obtuse francophone for a leader , who lead the party to a completely uninspiring defeat at last election .
His name was Dion , and he was a smart man with all the personality of a can of paint and all the media saavy of an average middle school student .
Harper , in a typical bullheaded move , pulled some shenanigans right after the election , and pissed off all the other parties , including the Bloc .
So they agreed to form a coalition , which would have put Harper out on the street , and Dion ( the man he just defeated ) in as Prime Minister .
This was obviously a very bad idea as the Conservatives hated Dion , and the Liberals were n't exactly effusive with praise .
In fact , they were anxious to ditch his sorry ass ASAP .
Rather than face an ignominious defeat at the hands of Dion , Harper drove his Waaaaahmbulance over to the governor General 's office and weeped bitter tears to the Queen 's representative , because , Canada is ( in a few narrow ways ) still a fucking colony and the Queen is technically the head of state .
He begged her to prorogate parliament , and she rolled on it .
This left Canada without a functioning government at one of the most critical times in world history : the collapse of American Capitalism in winter 2008/9 .
So , if something truly insane happened , there would be no deliberative body to make policy and pass law .
A truly desperate and stupid move by Harper , who was already on the shitlist of the conservatives for failing to get a majority gov't , and on the permanent shitlist of all the other parties for , well , basically being a bit of a dick .
In the process , the Liberals booted Dion and replaced him with a man named Ignatieff .
Ignatieff is very smart , fairly slick , and every bit of a dick that Harper is , it 's just that he has a few ( if poorly implemented and largely hidden ) scruples .
Who represents the NDP , the Greens and the Bloc is only of consequence to the constituents , as none will be a majority party any time soon .
So , now we 're looking at another election , and it will likely be the third in 4 or so years .
And my guess is it will have the same results as before .
None . The only thing that is likely to happen is the Liberals will take over with a minority government , and thusly be every bit as effective at governing this nation of cats as Harper , i.e , not at all .
So , this online voting boondoggle is jsut te latest drama in this soap opera of Canadian Politics .
tune in next week when they decide to ban beer , but only between 2 AM and 6 AM .
Or something equally retarded .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is online, it can be hacked and the data can be faked.
Epic FAIL in the offing.
The problem of low voter turnout has to do with the nature of Canadian politics.
The facts, for our dear American cousins south of the border who don't know what's going on with their single biggest trading partner:

It's a multiparty parliamentary system.
There are two dominant parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, a very siginficant local collection of politics call the Bloc (from Quebec, and includes hardcore separatist groups), and a significant minority party, the lefty NDP.
There is also a significant Green party presence, although they lost their seat last election.
The party in power is the conservative party.
Whether your sentiments are conservative or not, (mine are not, but that's not relevant right here) doesn't change the fact that the leader, Stephen Harper, is an imbecile who has ineptly squandered every opportunity to get it right.
I don't much care for the Conservative Party, but I feel really bad for them having such a dumb ass for a leader.
It's kind of embarrassing.
You have my sincere condolences.
The party in power (Conservative) is a Minority government, i.e., it rules without a majority in parliament.
The second party, the Liberal Party had an obtuse francophone for a leader, who lead the party to a completely uninspiring defeat at last election.
His name was Dion, and he was a smart man with all the personality of a can of paint and all the media saavy of an average middle school student.
Harper, in a typical bullheaded move, pulled some shenanigans right after the election, and pissed off all the other parties, including the Bloc.
So they agreed to form a coalition, which would have put Harper out on the street, and Dion (the man he just defeated) in as Prime Minister.
This was obviously a very bad idea as the Conservatives hated Dion, and the Liberals weren't exactly effusive with praise.
In fact, they were anxious to ditch his sorry ass ASAP.
Rather than face an ignominious defeat at the hands of Dion, Harper drove his Waaaaahmbulance over to the governor General's office and weeped bitter tears to the Queen's representative, because, Canada is (in a few narrow ways) still a fucking colony and the Queen is technically the head of state.
He begged her to prorogate parliament, and she rolled on it.
This left Canada without a functioning government at one of the most critical times in world history: the collapse of American Capitalism in winter 2008/9.
So, if something truly insane happened, there would be no deliberative body to make policy and pass law.
A truly desperate and stupid move by Harper, who was already on the shitlist of the conservatives for failing to get a majority gov't, and on the permanent shitlist of all the other parties for, well, basically being a bit of a dick.
In  the process, the Liberals booted Dion and replaced him with a man named Ignatieff.
Ignatieff is very smart, fairly slick, and every bit of a dick that Harper is, it's just that he has a few (if poorly implemented and largely hidden) scruples.
Who represents the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc is only of consequence to the constituents, as none will be a majority party any time soon.
So, now we're looking at another election, and it will likely be the third in 4 or so years.
And my guess is it will have the same results as before.
None.

The only thing that is likely to happen is the Liberals will take over with a minority government, and thusly be every bit as effective at governing this nation of cats as Harper, i.e, not at all.
So, this online voting boondoggle is jsut te latest drama in this soap opera of Canadian Politics.
tune in next week when they decide to ban beer, but only between 2 AM and 6 AM.
Or something equally retarded.
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504439</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1246209060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed.</i></p><p>Yeah, breaking the stanglehold of the parties on Parliament is a huge issue, mostly procedural.  I've been slowly learning a little about House procedure to try to figure out how we got into this mess, but this is the major issue in Canadian democracy, and we certainly shouldn't even be thinking about  online voting until we've dealt with it.</p><p>The current state of affairs means that almost all of the business of the House gets done in the caucus of the ruling party, or in committee (which is at least a little bit visible.)  Far too much of the business of government is being done in secret now, not being properly debated in Parliament.</p><p>I actually voted Liberal in the last election for the first time in my life, which as a Westerner was pretty much like signing a pact with the Devil.  But he was the best of a terrible lot--I actually wrote our Conservative candidate to tell him what a scumbag he was, and how as a one-time supporter of the PCs I couldn't see myself ever voting for his party again.  If we'd had a Marijuana Party candidate I'd've gone for them, but what I really wanted to see was a Rhino.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then there 's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person , so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I 'm screwed.Yeah , breaking the stanglehold of the parties on Parliament is a huge issue , mostly procedural .
I 've been slowly learning a little about House procedure to try to figure out how we got into this mess , but this is the major issue in Canadian democracy , and we certainly should n't even be thinking about online voting until we 've dealt with it.The current state of affairs means that almost all of the business of the House gets done in the caucus of the ruling party , or in committee ( which is at least a little bit visible .
) Far too much of the business of government is being done in secret now , not being properly debated in Parliament.I actually voted Liberal in the last election for the first time in my life , which as a Westerner was pretty much like signing a pact with the Devil .
But he was the best of a terrible lot--I actually wrote our Conservative candidate to tell him what a scumbag he was , and how as a one-time supporter of the PCs I could n't see myself ever voting for his party again .
If we 'd had a Marijuana Party candidate I 'd've gone for them , but what I really wanted to see was a Rhino .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed.Yeah, breaking the stanglehold of the parties on Parliament is a huge issue, mostly procedural.
I've been slowly learning a little about House procedure to try to figure out how we got into this mess, but this is the major issue in Canadian democracy, and we certainly shouldn't even be thinking about  online voting until we've dealt with it.The current state of affairs means that almost all of the business of the House gets done in the caucus of the ruling party, or in committee (which is at least a little bit visible.
)  Far too much of the business of government is being done in secret now, not being properly debated in Parliament.I actually voted Liberal in the last election for the first time in my life, which as a Westerner was pretty much like signing a pact with the Devil.
But he was the best of a terrible lot--I actually wrote our Conservative candidate to tell him what a scumbag he was, and how as a one-time supporter of the PCs I couldn't see myself ever voting for his party again.
If we'd had a Marijuana Party candidate I'd've gone for them, but what I really wanted to see was a Rhino.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500451</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This vulnerability is already present now, as you said, with absentee ballots. Yet there has not been noticeable voter coercion or vote buying as a result. If someone really wanted to buy/bully a voter, why not buy/bully them into voting by mail? Wouldn't the same deterrents (whatever they may be) against mail voting crime also work against electronic voting crime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This vulnerability is already present now , as you said , with absentee ballots .
Yet there has not been noticeable voter coercion or vote buying as a result .
If someone really wanted to buy/bully a voter , why not buy/bully them into voting by mail ?
Would n't the same deterrents ( whatever they may be ) against mail voting crime also work against electronic voting crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This vulnerability is already present now, as you said, with absentee ballots.
Yet there has not been noticeable voter coercion or vote buying as a result.
If someone really wanted to buy/bully a voter, why not buy/bully them into voting by mail?
Wouldn't the same deterrents (whatever they may be) against mail voting crime also work against electronic voting crime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510507</id>
	<title>Re:Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246216560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a Canadian living abroad. The postal service here sucks so much that I lost my chance to vote at the last provincial election (the forms I sent almost as soon as they were on the 'net didn't reach on time).</p><p>Anything that facilitates me casting my ballot without having to cross half of the globe is a good idea!</p><p>There are obvious security problems with online voting itself, but I wouldn't mind an online registration / postal ballot request.</p><p>Besides, we already have e-services for passports (you fill the forms online, so its faster when you reach the passport office) and probably a few other things. We could simply expand this e-service infrastructure and add one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a Canadian living abroad .
The postal service here sucks so much that I lost my chance to vote at the last provincial election ( the forms I sent almost as soon as they were on the 'net did n't reach on time ) .Anything that facilitates me casting my ballot without having to cross half of the globe is a good idea ! There are obvious security problems with online voting itself , but I would n't mind an online registration / postal ballot request.Besides , we already have e-services for passports ( you fill the forms online , so its faster when you reach the passport office ) and probably a few other things .
We could simply expand this e-service infrastructure and add one : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a Canadian living abroad.
The postal service here sucks so much that I lost my chance to vote at the last provincial election (the forms I sent almost as soon as they were on the 'net didn't reach on time).Anything that facilitates me casting my ballot without having to cross half of the globe is a good idea!There are obvious security problems with online voting itself, but I wouldn't mind an online registration / postal ballot request.Besides, we already have e-services for passports (you fill the forms online, so its faster when you reach the passport office) and probably a few other things.
We could simply expand this e-service infrastructure and add one :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503579</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>rhakka</author>
	<datestamp>1246202280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's a trade off as well.  Making voting anonymous and private allows a very significant vector for fraud, simply because you can't track any votes.  So as long as the number of ballots counts is a reasonable percentage of the registered voters in an area (a list that contains ineligible and dead people and 20-50\% people who will not show up to vote as well), fraud can be pretty hard to detect.</p><p>Non-anonymous voting brings coercion back as a possible problem, but it eliminates fraud to a large degree otherwise, since you can trace every vote back to a live person.  I'm not worried about paying for votes.. if people want to sell votes, so  be it... though the rest of your examples are very bothersome of course.  But so is fraud.</p><p>So how to balance these two problems?  is there a solution that solves both?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's a trade off as well .
Making voting anonymous and private allows a very significant vector for fraud , simply because you ca n't track any votes .
So as long as the number of ballots counts is a reasonable percentage of the registered voters in an area ( a list that contains ineligible and dead people and 20-50 \ % people who will not show up to vote as well ) , fraud can be pretty hard to detect.Non-anonymous voting brings coercion back as a possible problem , but it eliminates fraud to a large degree otherwise , since you can trace every vote back to a live person .
I 'm not worried about paying for votes.. if people want to sell votes , so be it... though the rest of your examples are very bothersome of course .
But so is fraud.So how to balance these two problems ?
is there a solution that solves both ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's a trade off as well.
Making voting anonymous and private allows a very significant vector for fraud, simply because you can't track any votes.
So as long as the number of ballots counts is a reasonable percentage of the registered voters in an area (a list that contains ineligible and dead people and 20-50\% people who will not show up to vote as well), fraud can be pretty hard to detect.Non-anonymous voting brings coercion back as a possible problem, but it eliminates fraud to a large degree otherwise, since you can trace every vote back to a live person.
I'm not worried about paying for votes.. if people want to sell votes, so  be it... though the rest of your examples are very bothersome of course.
But so is fraud.So how to balance these two problems?
is there a solution that solves both?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501269</id>
	<title>My predictions for canadas election</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246126680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My predictions for canadas next election results, from most votes to least.

<ol>
<li>Xenu</li><li>Battletoads</li><li>Ron Paul</li><li>Someone who's actually running.</li></ol><p>

Yeah, online voting never fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My predictions for canadas next election results , from most votes to least .
XenuBattletoadsRon PaulSomeone who 's actually running .
Yeah , online voting never fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My predictions for canadas next election results, from most votes to least.
XenuBattletoadsRon PaulSomeone who's actually running.
Yeah, online voting never fails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500903</id>
	<title>before you knee-jerk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about how online tax returns are handled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about how online tax returns are handled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about how online tax returns are handled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502107</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1246184700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Uh, Your vote goes up in the magic smoke?</b></p><p><i>Mod <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1284545&amp;cid=28501955" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [slashdot.org] up.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , Your vote goes up in the magic smoke ? Mod this [ slashdot.org ] up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, Your vote goes up in the magic smoke?Mod this [slashdot.org] up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500461</id>
	<title>As seen in The Times top 100...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>marblecake also the game</htmltext>
<tokenext>marblecake also the game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marblecake also the game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500743</id>
	<title>It people cared.. They'd vote..</title>
	<author>Garbad Ropedink</author>
	<datestamp>1246121640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason the  turnout for the last election was so bad was because we shouldn't have had it. There was no real solid issue being fought, and the leaders weren't worth voting for. That's why Mr. Dion is no longer the head of the Liberal party. We wasted millions of dollars for effectively the same government as we had before, give or take a few seats. People just didn't care at that point. There was some talk of having a summer election over possibly EI reform or some non issue like that. Fortunately that didn't happen. We'd just wind up with another minority government with possibly the Liberals in control, but effectively the same dysfunctional mess we've been stuck with for years now.</p><p>Eventually a big enough issue will blow that'll cause a good old fashioned proper election. Then we'll see a proper turnout because people will actually care about what's going on. Lack of access to polling stations isn't stopping people from voting. Elections Canada is like any other government office, it's staffed by morons who don't understand the job they were hired to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason the turnout for the last election was so bad was because we should n't have had it .
There was no real solid issue being fought , and the leaders were n't worth voting for .
That 's why Mr. Dion is no longer the head of the Liberal party .
We wasted millions of dollars for effectively the same government as we had before , give or take a few seats .
People just did n't care at that point .
There was some talk of having a summer election over possibly EI reform or some non issue like that .
Fortunately that did n't happen .
We 'd just wind up with another minority government with possibly the Liberals in control , but effectively the same dysfunctional mess we 've been stuck with for years now.Eventually a big enough issue will blow that 'll cause a good old fashioned proper election .
Then we 'll see a proper turnout because people will actually care about what 's going on .
Lack of access to polling stations is n't stopping people from voting .
Elections Canada is like any other government office , it 's staffed by morons who do n't understand the job they were hired to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason the  turnout for the last election was so bad was because we shouldn't have had it.
There was no real solid issue being fought, and the leaders weren't worth voting for.
That's why Mr. Dion is no longer the head of the Liberal party.
We wasted millions of dollars for effectively the same government as we had before, give or take a few seats.
People just didn't care at that point.
There was some talk of having a summer election over possibly EI reform or some non issue like that.
Fortunately that didn't happen.
We'd just wind up with another minority government with possibly the Liberals in control, but effectively the same dysfunctional mess we've been stuck with for years now.Eventually a big enough issue will blow that'll cause a good old fashioned proper election.
Then we'll see a proper turnout because people will actually care about what's going on.
Lack of access to polling stations isn't stopping people from voting.
Elections Canada is like any other government office, it's staffed by morons who don't understand the job they were hired to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339</id>
	<title>Not a horrible idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this could work, as long as they make it very VERY secure and accurate.</p><p>On the other hand, If you're too lazy to get off your butt and vote, I wouldn't mind it if your voice wasn't heard in my country. The problem isn't that its too hard to vote, its that people need to realize how important it is that they vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this could work , as long as they make it very VERY secure and accurate.On the other hand , If you 're too lazy to get off your butt and vote , I would n't mind it if your voice was n't heard in my country .
The problem is n't that its too hard to vote , its that people need to realize how important it is that they vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this could work, as long as they make it very VERY secure and accurate.On the other hand, If you're too lazy to get off your butt and vote, I wouldn't mind it if your voice wasn't heard in my country.
The problem isn't that its too hard to vote, its that people need to realize how important it is that they vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011</id>
	<title>Where is the paper trail?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246124160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article by the "Vancouver Sun" does not mention anything about a paper trail.  Yet, a paper trail is vital to ensuring that the votes can be counted in a re-count if someone disputes the count generated by an electronic voting machine.
<p>
The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and, also, online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to (1) protect a voter from his own stupidity and (2) protect a voter from his own laziness.  Frankly, why should we care if a voter is too stupid or too lazy to vote?
</p><p>
This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions (on the voting ballot) in the American presidential election of 2000.  Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions, they created ballots that were ambiguous.
</p><p>
These instructions are not rocket science.  They are written so that a child in 8th grade can understand them.  If a voter lacks even the intelligence to follow simple instructions, he likely lacks the intelligence to comprehend foreign policy and domestic policy.  The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy.  An uninformed vote by an idiot would actually damage our democracy.
</p><p>
The other issue is the lazy voter.  This online voting proposal mentioned by the "Vancouver Sun" is supposed to cater to him.  Well, if a voter is too lazy to vote, then he is likely too lazy to make an effort to understand foreign policy and domestic policy.  The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy.
</p><p>
The bottom line is that paper ballots work just fine.  We should continue to use them.  Forget the electronic voting machines and online voting.  They are far less safe and less reliable than mere paper ballots.
</p><p>
Let's keep the paper ballots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article by the " Vancouver Sun " does not mention anything about a paper trail .
Yet , a paper trail is vital to ensuring that the votes can be counted in a re-count if someone disputes the count generated by an electronic voting machine .
The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and , also , online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to ( 1 ) protect a voter from his own stupidity and ( 2 ) protect a voter from his own laziness .
Frankly , why should we care if a voter is too stupid or too lazy to vote ?
This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions ( on the voting ballot ) in the American presidential election of 2000 .
Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions , they created ballots that were ambiguous .
These instructions are not rocket science .
They are written so that a child in 8th grade can understand them .
If a voter lacks even the intelligence to follow simple instructions , he likely lacks the intelligence to comprehend foreign policy and domestic policy .
The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy .
An uninformed vote by an idiot would actually damage our democracy .
The other issue is the lazy voter .
This online voting proposal mentioned by the " Vancouver Sun " is supposed to cater to him .
Well , if a voter is too lazy to vote , then he is likely too lazy to make an effort to understand foreign policy and domestic policy .
The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy .
The bottom line is that paper ballots work just fine .
We should continue to use them .
Forget the electronic voting machines and online voting .
They are far less safe and less reliable than mere paper ballots .
Let 's keep the paper ballots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article by the "Vancouver Sun" does not mention anything about a paper trail.
Yet, a paper trail is vital to ensuring that the votes can be counted in a re-count if someone disputes the count generated by an electronic voting machine.
The silliness of the electronic voting machine -- and, also, online voting -- is that these contraptions are intended to (1) protect a voter from his own stupidity and (2) protect a voter from his own laziness.
Frankly, why should we care if a voter is too stupid or too lazy to vote?
This entire electronic voting craze began after some voters in Florida could not follow simple instructions (on the voting ballot) in the American presidential election of 2000.
Because they lacked the intelligence to follow simple instructions, they created ballots that were ambiguous.
These instructions are not rocket science.
They are written so that a child in 8th grade can understand them.
If a voter lacks even the intelligence to follow simple instructions, he likely lacks the intelligence to comprehend foreign policy and domestic policy.
The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy.
An uninformed vote by an idiot would actually damage our democracy.
The other issue is the lazy voter.
This online voting proposal mentioned by the "Vancouver Sun" is supposed to cater to him.
Well, if a voter is too lazy to vote, then he is likely too lazy to make an effort to understand foreign policy and domestic policy.
The loss of his vote is not a loss to democracy.
The bottom line is that paper ballots work just fine.
We should continue to use them.
Forget the electronic voting machines and online voting.
They are far less safe and less reliable than mere paper ballots.
Let's keep the paper ballots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500571</id>
	<title>its happened before</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246120440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html" title="time.com">http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html</a> [time.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html [ time.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1894028,00.html [time.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501049</id>
	<title>Register to vote onlin</title>
	<author>thirty-seven</author>
	<datestamp>1246124640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online, update registration information online, and maybe even vote online.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Being able to register online or update your registration information online, if it is well-implemented, would be great.  Already, Elections Ontario lets you check if you are on their <a href="https://www3.elections.on.ca/internetapp/aiotl.aspx" title="elections.on.ca">register of electors</a> [elections.on.ca].  Being able to easily correct that information or update it online would be great.
<br>
However, actually <i>registering</i> to vote is not something that most Canadians have to do - unless they explicitly opt out, they get registered by doing things like filing their tax forms or renewing their driver's licence.  The provincial and federal electoral organizations share their list of voters with each other regularly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online , update registration information online , and maybe even vote online .
Being able to register online or update your registration information online , if it is well-implemented , would be great .
Already , Elections Ontario lets you check if you are on their register of electors [ elections.on.ca ] .
Being able to easily correct that information or update it online would be great .
However , actually registering to vote is not something that most Canadians have to do - unless they explicitly opt out , they get registered by doing things like filing their tax forms or renewing their driver 's licence .
The provincial and federal electoral organizations share their list of voters with each other regularly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Elections Canada is kicking around the idea of allowing voters to register online, update registration information online, and maybe even vote online.
Being able to register online or update your registration information online, if it is well-implemented, would be great.
Already, Elections Ontario lets you check if you are on their register of electors [elections.on.ca].
Being able to easily correct that information or update it online would be great.
However, actually registering to vote is not something that most Canadians have to do - unless they explicitly opt out, they get registered by doing things like filing their tax forms or renewing their driver's licence.
The provincial and federal electoral organizations share their list of voters with each other regularly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504069</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1246206360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks. Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else. The 80 yr old guy that does the &quot;security&quot; check is a joke.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>You&rsquo;re obviously a young squirt that went to vote once, and got turned-off by having to wait 5 minute in line behind some geezers, and once inside, was sufficiently pissed-off from the wait to not observe the process, which is there to insure that there is no fraud.</p><p>And you obviously never worked at elections so you have no idea of the process. (I have; I occupied most positions in polling places, so I know what I&rsquo;m talking about).</p><p>As of security, well, granted, until about 5 years ago, federal election officials were actually <strong>**PROHIBITED** </strong>by law from asking ID. This was changed <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/lega-e/44645-e.htm?Language=E&amp;Parl=39&amp;Ses=1&amp;comm\_id=11" title="parl.gc.ca">following Qu&eacute;bec doing the same after uncovering significant electoral fraud</a> [parl.gc.ca] ($10 being paid for people for each ballot they cast, impersonating someone else, to the benefit of, of course, the liberal party of Qu&eacute;bec).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks .
Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else .
The 80 yr old guy that does the " security " check is a joke .
You    re obviously a young squirt that went to vote once , and got turned-off by having to wait 5 minute in line behind some geezers , and once inside , was sufficiently pissed-off from the wait to not observe the process , which is there to insure that there is no fraud.And you obviously never worked at elections so you have no idea of the process .
( I have ; I occupied most positions in polling places , so I know what I    m talking about ) .As of security , well , granted , until about 5 years ago , federal election officials were actually * * PROHIBITED * * by law from asking ID .
This was changed following Qu   bec doing the same after uncovering significant electoral fraud [ parl.gc.ca ] ( $ 10 being paid for people for each ballot they cast , impersonating someone else , to the benefit of , of course , the liberal party of Qu   bec ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Now the voters will actually represent what the public really thinks.
Actually going and voting is so insecure any hack can show up and say he is somebody else.
The 80 yr old guy that does the "security" check is a joke.
You’re obviously a young squirt that went to vote once, and got turned-off by having to wait 5 minute in line behind some geezers, and once inside, was sufficiently pissed-off from the wait to not observe the process, which is there to insure that there is no fraud.And you obviously never worked at elections so you have no idea of the process.
(I have; I occupied most positions in polling places, so I know what I’m talking about).As of security, well, granted, until about 5 years ago, federal election officials were actually **PROHIBITED** by law from asking ID.
This was changed following Québec doing the same after uncovering significant electoral fraud [parl.gc.ca] ($10 being paid for people for each ballot they cast, impersonating someone else, to the benefit of, of course, the liberal party of Québec).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501837</id>
	<title>Re:Compulsory voting....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246222500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You shouldnt force the apathetic to vote.  You will only get bad results.  They will vote for whomever had the slickest ads (or the biggest hair, or whatever).</p><p>I dont begrudge those who dont vote.  I would rather that they not cast an uninformed vote.</p><p>In the last BC provincial election, a lot of people voted "no" because they didn't understand the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You shouldnt force the apathetic to vote .
You will only get bad results .
They will vote for whomever had the slickest ads ( or the biggest hair , or whatever ) .I dont begrudge those who dont vote .
I would rather that they not cast an uninformed vote.In the last BC provincial election , a lot of people voted " no " because they did n't understand the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You shouldnt force the apathetic to vote.
You will only get bad results.
They will vote for whomever had the slickest ads (or the biggest hair, or whatever).I dont begrudge those who dont vote.
I would rather that they not cast an uninformed vote.In the last BC provincial election, a lot of people voted "no" because they didn't understand the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246121100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DO NOT WANT</p></div><p>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED. I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.</p><p>

And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed. So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good. Two good politicians? This never happens.</p><p>

Online voting won't fix a bunch of broken parties, it'll just make tech-savvy people ignore online voting just like they ignore real voting. Let's face it, it's damn easy to vote. If you can be arsed to get to the polling site, that's the hardest part. After that it's having your name checked off and marking an X. If you catch it outside the rush it's faster than popping over to the 7-11 for a Big Gulp. Seriously, if people are too lazy or indifferent for that, then anything with a more complex authentication strategy than an online "BRING BACK CANCELLED SHOW X!" petition is going to be too much work too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT WANTAnd as a Canadian let me say that the reason that " voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record " was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED .
I almost voted for the Communist just because I did n't know him and therefore did n't want to punch him in the face .
And then there 's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person , so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I 'm screwed .
So , to cast a vote I feel good about , both the local guy and the party leader have to be good .
Two good politicians ?
This never happens .
Online voting wo n't fix a bunch of broken parties , it 'll just make tech-savvy people ignore online voting just like they ignore real voting .
Let 's face it , it 's damn easy to vote .
If you can be arsed to get to the polling site , that 's the hardest part .
After that it 's having your name checked off and marking an X. If you catch it outside the rush it 's faster than popping over to the 7-11 for a Big Gulp .
Seriously , if people are too lazy or indifferent for that , then anything with a more complex authentication strategy than an online " BRING BACK CANCELLED SHOW X !
" petition is going to be too much work too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT WANTAnd as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED.
I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.
And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed.
So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good.
Two good politicians?
This never happens.
Online voting won't fix a bunch of broken parties, it'll just make tech-savvy people ignore online voting just like they ignore real voting.
Let's face it, it's damn easy to vote.
If you can be arsed to get to the polling site, that's the hardest part.
After that it's having your name checked off and marking an X. If you catch it outside the rush it's faster than popping over to the 7-11 for a Big Gulp.
Seriously, if people are too lazy or indifferent for that, then anything with a more complex authentication strategy than an online "BRING BACK CANCELLED SHOW X!
" petition is going to be too much work too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503527</id>
	<title>One way to prevent vote selling</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246201860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give every registered voter 2-8 different numbers (it should be random, so people can't say "show me all 5 of your numbers") that could be used to vote, but only one of them works (it has an easily removable sticker, or other mechanism, on it that says it works). If you use any of the numbers to vote, it <b>looks</b> like you're voting normally, but the vote is only added to the tally if you're using the right number. So you could bring the invalid numbers to work, collect your bonus, then send in your real vote with the correct number,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give every registered voter 2-8 different numbers ( it should be random , so people ca n't say " show me all 5 of your numbers " ) that could be used to vote , but only one of them works ( it has an easily removable sticker , or other mechanism , on it that says it works ) .
If you use any of the numbers to vote , it looks like you 're voting normally , but the vote is only added to the tally if you 're using the right number .
So you could bring the invalid numbers to work , collect your bonus , then send in your real vote with the correct number,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give every registered voter 2-8 different numbers (it should be random, so people can't say "show me all 5 of your numbers") that could be used to vote, but only one of them works (it has an easily removable sticker, or other mechanism, on it that says it works).
If you use any of the numbers to vote, it looks like you're voting normally, but the vote is only added to the tally if you're using the right number.
So you could bring the invalid numbers to work, collect your bonus, then send in your real vote with the correct number,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502535</id>
	<title>Why do they do this?</title>
	<author>The Mgt</author>
	<datestamp>1246191420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So often the response by politicians to low voter turnout is to propose measures like postal ballots or internet voting (because voting is SO difficult and time consuming) rather than addressing the problem that such a large chunk of the electorate see none of the candidates as worth voting for or the whole process as meaningless, changing nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So often the response by politicians to low voter turnout is to propose measures like postal ballots or internet voting ( because voting is SO difficult and time consuming ) rather than addressing the problem that such a large chunk of the electorate see none of the candidates as worth voting for or the whole process as meaningless , changing nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So often the response by politicians to low voter turnout is to propose measures like postal ballots or internet voting (because voting is SO difficult and time consuming) rather than addressing the problem that such a large chunk of the electorate see none of the candidates as worth voting for or the whole process as meaningless, changing nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502213</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, stupid, stupid idea</title>
	<author>teh\_architect</author>
	<datestamp>1246186560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Easily the best argument against online voting, but then again how many who CBA to vote now will care to vote online? Research is needed..
<br> <br>
2) One simple counter to most exploitation.. after a vote, all participants are given a unique identifying number, when the tally is done a complete list of all votes along with their UID numbers are released. Anyone can compile the list themselves to verify the results, and anyone can double check their vote with their unique number.
<br> <br>
Enough people will check their ID to make it impossible to alter a significant amount of legitimate votes unnoticed. Still won't solve everything of course, ID theft would be an issue, but there are already plenty of ways to counter that..</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Easily the best argument against online voting , but then again how many who CBA to vote now will care to vote online ?
Research is needed. . 2 ) One simple counter to most exploitation.. after a vote , all participants are given a unique identifying number , when the tally is done a complete list of all votes along with their UID numbers are released .
Anyone can compile the list themselves to verify the results , and anyone can double check their vote with their unique number .
Enough people will check their ID to make it impossible to alter a significant amount of legitimate votes unnoticed .
Still wo n't solve everything of course , ID theft would be an issue , but there are already plenty of ways to counter that. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Easily the best argument against online voting, but then again how many who CBA to vote now will care to vote online?
Research is needed..
 
2) One simple counter to most exploitation.. after a vote, all participants are given a unique identifying number, when the tally is done a complete list of all votes along with their UID numbers are released.
Anyone can compile the list themselves to verify the results, and anyone can double check their vote with their unique number.
Enough people will check their ID to make it impossible to alter a significant amount of legitimate votes unnoticed.
Still won't solve everything of course, ID theft would be an issue, but there are already plenty of ways to counter that..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503615</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid, stupid, stupid idea</title>
	<author>urbanriot</author>
	<datestamp>1246202640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you. I'd posted the same thing in another forum that brought this up yesterday. "The last thing this country needs is more uninformed citizens being able to easily and quickly click vote. Online voting isn't going to decrease political apathy."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
I 'd posted the same thing in another forum that brought this up yesterday .
" The last thing this country needs is more uninformed citizens being able to easily and quickly click vote .
Online voting is n't going to decrease political apathy .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
I'd posted the same thing in another forum that brought this up yesterday.
"The last thing this country needs is more uninformed citizens being able to easily and quickly click vote.
Online voting isn't going to decrease political apathy.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504293</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1246208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>Its still a secret ballot. As secret as you want it to be. No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>Which is the problem, because in that system, there is no way to officially make sure that you did not let someone &ldquo;stand there and watch&rdquo;, which is the point of polling stations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its still a secret ballot .
As secret as you want it to be .
No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch .
Which is the problem , because in that system , there is no way to officially make sure that you did not let someone    stand there and watch    , which is the point of polling stations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Its still a secret ballot.
As secret as you want it to be.
No one knows what you voted unless you let them stand there and watch.
Which is the problem, because in that system, there is no way to officially make sure that you did not let someone “stand there and watch”, which is the point of polling stations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503027</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is...can't validate the on-line votes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could tie voting to filing your taxes (which many people do completely online). Lets see a hacker pretend to be me and pay my 3,000 tax bill while they are at it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could tie voting to filing your taxes ( which many people do completely online ) .
Lets see a hacker pretend to be me and pay my 3,000 tax bill while they are at it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could tie voting to filing your taxes (which many people do completely online).
Lets see a hacker pretend to be me and pay my 3,000 tax bill while they are at it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501247</id>
	<title>Re:Secret Ballot is Essential</title>
	<author>Edmund in Tokyo</author>
	<datestamp>1246126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can solve this problem with Backwards Votes. Here's how it works:
<br> <br>
You have to register once (only once) in a controlled location, where somebody makes sure you're not videoing it and there's nobody watching over your shoulder.
<br> <br>
When you register, you decide (or the system randomly decides and tells you) whether your vote should be a Forward Vote or an Backwards Vote. Only you know whether your vote is Forward Vote or a Backwards Vote, and it will never be shown to you when you go to vote online, or anywhere outside the secure booth where you registered.
<br> <br>
When you vote online, you have the option of casting a vote for a candidate or against them. A vote for someone increases their vote by one, and a vote against them decreases their vote by one. But if you have a Backwards Vote, a vote for would decrease their total, while a vote against would increase it.
<br> <br>
If someone tries to bribe or intimidate you to vote a certain way, they have no way of knowing whether they are forcing you to vote for their favourite candidate or against them. The same goes for malware on your client or between the client and the server: Since the information about whether your vote is Forward or Backward is only stored on the central server, the attacker only has a 50\% chance of getting the outcome they want, cancelled out by a 50\% chance of shooting themselves in the foot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can solve this problem with Backwards Votes .
Here 's how it works : You have to register once ( only once ) in a controlled location , where somebody makes sure you 're not videoing it and there 's nobody watching over your shoulder .
When you register , you decide ( or the system randomly decides and tells you ) whether your vote should be a Forward Vote or an Backwards Vote .
Only you know whether your vote is Forward Vote or a Backwards Vote , and it will never be shown to you when you go to vote online , or anywhere outside the secure booth where you registered .
When you vote online , you have the option of casting a vote for a candidate or against them .
A vote for someone increases their vote by one , and a vote against them decreases their vote by one .
But if you have a Backwards Vote , a vote for would decrease their total , while a vote against would increase it .
If someone tries to bribe or intimidate you to vote a certain way , they have no way of knowing whether they are forcing you to vote for their favourite candidate or against them .
The same goes for malware on your client or between the client and the server : Since the information about whether your vote is Forward or Backward is only stored on the central server , the attacker only has a 50 \ % chance of getting the outcome they want , cancelled out by a 50 \ % chance of shooting themselves in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can solve this problem with Backwards Votes.
Here's how it works:
 
You have to register once (only once) in a controlled location, where somebody makes sure you're not videoing it and there's nobody watching over your shoulder.
When you register, you decide (or the system randomly decides and tells you) whether your vote should be a Forward Vote or an Backwards Vote.
Only you know whether your vote is Forward Vote or a Backwards Vote, and it will never be shown to you when you go to vote online, or anywhere outside the secure booth where you registered.
When you vote online, you have the option of casting a vote for a candidate or against them.
A vote for someone increases their vote by one, and a vote against them decreases their vote by one.
But if you have a Backwards Vote, a vote for would decrease their total, while a vote against would increase it.
If someone tries to bribe or intimidate you to vote a certain way, they have no way of knowing whether they are forcing you to vote for their favourite candidate or against them.
The same goes for malware on your client or between the client and the server: Since the information about whether your vote is Forward or Backward is only stored on the central server, the attacker only has a 50\% chance of getting the outcome they want, cancelled out by a 50\% chance of shooting themselves in the foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504233</id>
	<title>Re:As a Canadian let me be the first to say</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1246207740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that &quot;voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record&quot; was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED. I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Fart.</p><p>We have the government we deserve.</p><blockquote><div><p> <em>And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed. So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>People have stopped giving a shit about local candidates long ago, ever since the parties have hijacked everything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that " voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record " was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED .
I almost voted for the Communist just because I did n't know him and therefore did n't want to punch him in the face .
Fart.We have the government we deserve .
And then there 's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person , so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I 'm screwed .
So , to cast a vote I feel good about , both the local guy and the party leader have to be good .
People have stopped giving a shit about local candidates long ago , ever since the parties have hijacked everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as a Canadian let me say that the reason that "voter turnout in our most recent election was the worst on record" was because THE CANDIDATES SUCKED.
I almost voted for the Communist just because I didn't know him and therefore didn't want to punch him in the face.
Fart.We have the government we deserve.
And then there's the fact that you have to vote for the party and not the person, so if I hate Harper but like the local Conservative I'm screwed.
So, to cast a vote I feel good about, both the local guy and the party leader have to be good.
People have stopped giving a shit about local candidates long ago, ever since the parties have hijacked everything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500691</id>
	<title>Do you value anonymity?</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1246121340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Online voting is great for things like stockholder's meetings where you don't have a secret ballot.</p><p>I've yet to see a vote-from-home system be it internet, phone, mail, or private courier that is guaranteed anonymous and guaranteed auditable even in the face of a corrupt poll worker.  Even paper ballot absentee voting is subject to corrupt officials figuring out who you voted for.</p><p>For that matter, some forms of at-the-poll balloting aren't guaranteed to be anonymous.</p><p>I can think of one scheme that <b>might</b> work but I'm sure there are bugs in it since I'm typing it in off the cuff:</p><p>You send a doubly-encrypted vote back to a vote-taking machine that affirms you are eligible to vote.  It "decrypts" the ballot resulting in two files:  Your encrypted voter registration ID and your encrypted ballot.  It prints these out then scans the printout and sends the scans back to you over an encrypted channel.  You can print this out if you want.  This is your "receipt" and is a deterrent against anyone trying to delete your vote from the system.</p><p>It then dumps the voter registration printout into one hopper, and the vote into another hopper and updates a counter.  The "hopper system" adds some randomness so there is no way to determine votes by order of arrival.  The hopper is also translucent so observers can mark down when a vote is cast, but can't take a picture of the ballot or the voter registration info.</p><p>At the end of the day, the voter registration information is scanned, decoded, and printed, and separately, the ballots are scanned, decoded, and tallied.  If the numbers don't add up to the counter the machine recorded, then something bad happened.</p><p>This does have one disadvantage over in-person voting:  Absent biometric identification, there is no way to know who is casting the vote at the other end.  You can't know that I didn't sign my senile wife up to vote over the Internet and use her password to vote.  Then again, this is true for paper absentee ballots too - signatures are easily forged if you have a sample handy, and with a senile voter, they may be easy to get an original signature from the actual voter then cast the vote for her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Online voting is great for things like stockholder 's meetings where you do n't have a secret ballot.I 've yet to see a vote-from-home system be it internet , phone , mail , or private courier that is guaranteed anonymous and guaranteed auditable even in the face of a corrupt poll worker .
Even paper ballot absentee voting is subject to corrupt officials figuring out who you voted for.For that matter , some forms of at-the-poll balloting are n't guaranteed to be anonymous.I can think of one scheme that might work but I 'm sure there are bugs in it since I 'm typing it in off the cuff : You send a doubly-encrypted vote back to a vote-taking machine that affirms you are eligible to vote .
It " decrypts " the ballot resulting in two files : Your encrypted voter registration ID and your encrypted ballot .
It prints these out then scans the printout and sends the scans back to you over an encrypted channel .
You can print this out if you want .
This is your " receipt " and is a deterrent against anyone trying to delete your vote from the system.It then dumps the voter registration printout into one hopper , and the vote into another hopper and updates a counter .
The " hopper system " adds some randomness so there is no way to determine votes by order of arrival .
The hopper is also translucent so observers can mark down when a vote is cast , but ca n't take a picture of the ballot or the voter registration info.At the end of the day , the voter registration information is scanned , decoded , and printed , and separately , the ballots are scanned , decoded , and tallied .
If the numbers do n't add up to the counter the machine recorded , then something bad happened.This does have one disadvantage over in-person voting : Absent biometric identification , there is no way to know who is casting the vote at the other end .
You ca n't know that I did n't sign my senile wife up to vote over the Internet and use her password to vote .
Then again , this is true for paper absentee ballots too - signatures are easily forged if you have a sample handy , and with a senile voter , they may be easy to get an original signature from the actual voter then cast the vote for her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online voting is great for things like stockholder's meetings where you don't have a secret ballot.I've yet to see a vote-from-home system be it internet, phone, mail, or private courier that is guaranteed anonymous and guaranteed auditable even in the face of a corrupt poll worker.
Even paper ballot absentee voting is subject to corrupt officials figuring out who you voted for.For that matter, some forms of at-the-poll balloting aren't guaranteed to be anonymous.I can think of one scheme that might work but I'm sure there are bugs in it since I'm typing it in off the cuff:You send a doubly-encrypted vote back to a vote-taking machine that affirms you are eligible to vote.
It "decrypts" the ballot resulting in two files:  Your encrypted voter registration ID and your encrypted ballot.
It prints these out then scans the printout and sends the scans back to you over an encrypted channel.
You can print this out if you want.
This is your "receipt" and is a deterrent against anyone trying to delete your vote from the system.It then dumps the voter registration printout into one hopper, and the vote into another hopper and updates a counter.
The "hopper system" adds some randomness so there is no way to determine votes by order of arrival.
The hopper is also translucent so observers can mark down when a vote is cast, but can't take a picture of the ballot or the voter registration info.At the end of the day, the voter registration information is scanned, decoded, and printed, and separately, the ballots are scanned, decoded, and tallied.
If the numbers don't add up to the counter the machine recorded, then something bad happened.This does have one disadvantage over in-person voting:  Absent biometric identification, there is no way to know who is casting the vote at the other end.
You can't know that I didn't sign my senile wife up to vote over the Internet and use her password to vote.
Then again, this is true for paper absentee ballots too - signatures are easily forged if you have a sample handy, and with a senile voter, they may be easy to get an original signature from the actual voter then cast the vote for her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502051</id>
	<title>Generally agree, eh?</title>
	<author>kwerle</author>
	<datestamp>1246183680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad idea</p></div><p>Do we?  I don't remember the poll.  What's worse, if there was a poll, I'm not sure my vote was counted.</p><p>Seriously, though: citation needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad ideaDo we ?
I do n't remember the poll .
What 's worse , if there was a poll , I 'm not sure my vote was counted.Seriously , though : citation needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot readers generally agree that voting machines such as those from Diebold are a bad ideaDo we?
I don't remember the poll.
What's worse, if there was a poll, I'm not sure my vote was counted.Seriously, though: citation needed.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500883</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is...can't validate the on-line votes</title>
	<author>lsdi</author>
	<datestamp>1246123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've posted over 10 times this same thing here in this thread. Documents signed with A3 certificates cannot be hacked, cannot be faked. SSL mutual authentication with this same certificate cannot be sniffed. I still can't beleive people really think that pieces of paper are safer than this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've posted over 10 times this same thing here in this thread .
Documents signed with A3 certificates can not be hacked , can not be faked .
SSL mutual authentication with this same certificate can not be sniffed .
I still ca n't beleive people really think that pieces of paper are safer than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've posted over 10 times this same thing here in this thread.
Documents signed with A3 certificates cannot be hacked, cannot be faked.
SSL mutual authentication with this same certificate cannot be sniffed.
I still can't beleive people really think that pieces of paper are safer than this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501099</id>
	<title>Oregon does it right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246125060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should take time to research Oregon's voting system. It's done by mail, has several levels of excellent security, allows voting over a reasonable period, and is almost impossible to fake, spoof, steal identities, or otherwise bugger. It also generates very high voter participation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should take time to research Oregon 's voting system .
It 's done by mail , has several levels of excellent security , allows voting over a reasonable period , and is almost impossible to fake , spoof , steal identities , or otherwise bugger .
It also generates very high voter participation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should take time to research Oregon's voting system.
It's done by mail, has several levels of excellent security, allows voting over a reasonable period, and is almost impossible to fake, spoof, steal identities, or otherwise bugger.
It also generates very high voter participation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501073</id>
	<title>Why don't they just say</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1246124880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Elections don't matter, it's the thought that counts".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Elections do n't matter , it 's the thought that counts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Elections don't matter, it's the thought that counts".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28514653</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>soundguy4film</author>
	<datestamp>1246293300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lots of things could go wrong and It seems that everyone is focusing on that.  What about everything that could go right, I don't know about Canada but the us needs this.  The main reason that the poverty and education gap remains so wide and continues to grow is because poor ignorant people either can't vote or don't.  If everyone could vote from their house their phone or their local public library voter turnout would be
masive, the votes of the rich and powerful that run the country would finally become a minority, even uninformed votes arebetter than votes only from one pArt of society.  Obama proved that the Internet can be used to mobilize votes and we had a better election turnout than usual.  But many people do t have the luxury to take the day off work and stand in line and wait to cast a physical ballot.
Granted we need to put some serious work into security and organization, how about make voting an addition to your taxes which you can already file online.  You do your taxes you cast your vote, we know who cast what vote and it is secured by both the IRS and the online voting agency.  most important is that people who actuAlly need things to change get to vote.  Money and education should not equal
power, I am tired of being stepped on by banks and insurance companies because most of the people who vote greedy
money grubbing conservatives who just want to line their pockets at the expense of the poor.

For example my small town bank went under in the recession,  I lost my job and I was left bank of America asmy bank.  My old bank allowed me to have a Check card but when I had no money in my account it would not let
buy something.  It strikes me that that is a good reason to have a card it can tell how much is in your account and not let you spend what you don't have.  Bank of America allows you to overdraft your account as much as you want toand then charges you fee's.  This is. System designed to hurt poor people, rich people don't overdraw their accounts.  There is no reason BOA can't stop transactions that will overdraw your bank account but they don't because they want to profit off your poverty.  This should be illegal, use the card how it is supposed to be used, force banks to prevent overdrafts for free by stopping overdraft transactions before they occur.  I would much rather be told my card was denied than be charged $35.  If I write a check and overdraw my account I will happily pay the fine but there is no excuse for banks to allow overdrafts on a card.   The list goes
on and on but it should not be cheaper to be rich, but is.  If you are weLthy you get cheaper insurance, lower interest rates, cars that don't need maintenance.  It should be reverse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things could go wrong and It seems that everyone is focusing on that .
What about everything that could go right , I do n't know about Canada but the us needs this .
The main reason that the poverty and education gap remains so wide and continues to grow is because poor ignorant people either ca n't vote or do n't .
If everyone could vote from their house their phone or their local public library voter turnout would be masive , the votes of the rich and powerful that run the country would finally become a minority , even uninformed votes arebetter than votes only from one pArt of society .
Obama proved that the Internet can be used to mobilize votes and we had a better election turnout than usual .
But many people do t have the luxury to take the day off work and stand in line and wait to cast a physical ballot .
Granted we need to put some serious work into security and organization , how about make voting an addition to your taxes which you can already file online .
You do your taxes you cast your vote , we know who cast what vote and it is secured by both the IRS and the online voting agency .
most important is that people who actuAlly need things to change get to vote .
Money and education should not equal power , I am tired of being stepped on by banks and insurance companies because most of the people who vote greedy money grubbing conservatives who just want to line their pockets at the expense of the poor .
For example my small town bank went under in the recession , I lost my job and I was left bank of America asmy bank .
My old bank allowed me to have a Check card but when I had no money in my account it would not let buy something .
It strikes me that that is a good reason to have a card it can tell how much is in your account and not let you spend what you do n't have .
Bank of America allows you to overdraft your account as much as you want toand then charges you fee 's .
This is .
System designed to hurt poor people , rich people do n't overdraw their accounts .
There is no reason BOA ca n't stop transactions that will overdraw your bank account but they do n't because they want to profit off your poverty .
This should be illegal , use the card how it is supposed to be used , force banks to prevent overdrafts for free by stopping overdraft transactions before they occur .
I would much rather be told my card was denied than be charged $ 35 .
If I write a check and overdraw my account I will happily pay the fine but there is no excuse for banks to allow overdrafts on a card .
The list goes on and on but it should not be cheaper to be rich , but is .
If you are weLthy you get cheaper insurance , lower interest rates , cars that do n't need maintenance .
It should be reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things could go wrong and It seems that everyone is focusing on that.
What about everything that could go right, I don't know about Canada but the us needs this.
The main reason that the poverty and education gap remains so wide and continues to grow is because poor ignorant people either can't vote or don't.
If everyone could vote from their house their phone or their local public library voter turnout would be
masive, the votes of the rich and powerful that run the country would finally become a minority, even uninformed votes arebetter than votes only from one pArt of society.
Obama proved that the Internet can be used to mobilize votes and we had a better election turnout than usual.
But many people do t have the luxury to take the day off work and stand in line and wait to cast a physical ballot.
Granted we need to put some serious work into security and organization, how about make voting an addition to your taxes which you can already file online.
You do your taxes you cast your vote, we know who cast what vote and it is secured by both the IRS and the online voting agency.
most important is that people who actuAlly need things to change get to vote.
Money and education should not equal
power, I am tired of being stepped on by banks and insurance companies because most of the people who vote greedy
money grubbing conservatives who just want to line their pockets at the expense of the poor.
For example my small town bank went under in the recession,  I lost my job and I was left bank of America asmy bank.
My old bank allowed me to have a Check card but when I had no money in my account it would not let
buy something.
It strikes me that that is a good reason to have a card it can tell how much is in your account and not let you spend what you don't have.
Bank of America allows you to overdraft your account as much as you want toand then charges you fee's.
This is.
System designed to hurt poor people, rich people don't overdraw their accounts.
There is no reason BOA can't stop transactions that will overdraw your bank account but they don't because they want to profit off your poverty.
This should be illegal, use the card how it is supposed to be used, force banks to prevent overdrafts for free by stopping overdraft transactions before they occur.
I would much rather be told my card was denied than be charged $35.
If I write a check and overdraw my account I will happily pay the fine but there is no excuse for banks to allow overdrafts on a card.
The list goes
on and on but it should not be cheaper to be rich, but is.
If you are weLthy you get cheaper insurance, lower interest rates, cars that don't need maintenance.
It should be reverse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500645</id>
	<title>Not really news</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1246121040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not really news, at least not for myself. I have produced a short report in 2002 with the issues related to e-voting for the GOC and I even suggested minimum requirements, so they were already looking at this back then.</p><p>Not much have changed since at probably not much will change in the future with regards to the issues. I guess they will simply go forward with it to save money when it will be politically acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not really news , at least not for myself .
I have produced a short report in 2002 with the issues related to e-voting for the GOC and I even suggested minimum requirements , so they were already looking at this back then.Not much have changed since at probably not much will change in the future with regards to the issues .
I guess they will simply go forward with it to save money when it will be politically acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not really news, at least not for myself.
I have produced a short report in 2002 with the issues related to e-voting for the GOC and I even suggested minimum requirements, so they were already looking at this back then.Not much have changed since at probably not much will change in the future with regards to the issues.
I guess they will simply go forward with it to save money when it will be politically acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313</id>
	<title>What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503069</id>
	<title>Re:Not a horrible idea...</title>
	<author>Zygfryd</author>
	<datestamp>1246197960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually took the time before the EP election here in Poland to look for a candidate that I could feel represented by. The problem is that my candidate was from an unpopular party and that you only get one vote in our voting system.<br> <br>

Essentially that means that I had two choices:<ul> <li>vote for my favorite and lose my vote (when the party doesn't cross 5\% the vote is discarded)</li><li>vote for some people I don't trust at all - so that my vote actually influenced the final results.</li></ul><p>

This is what disenchants me about our democracy. It doesn't really work.
IMHO, we desperately need a single trasferable vote system to make voting worthwhile again. That way people could vote for their unpopular favorites and influence the outcome of the battle between the dominant parties with one vote. This can give fringe parties like the Pirate Party or the Greens a much better chance of getting in, diversifying the political landscape. And if this doesn't draw disenchanted voters to the booths, I'm not sure what will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually took the time before the EP election here in Poland to look for a candidate that I could feel represented by .
The problem is that my candidate was from an unpopular party and that you only get one vote in our voting system .
Essentially that means that I had two choices : vote for my favorite and lose my vote ( when the party does n't cross 5 \ % the vote is discarded ) vote for some people I do n't trust at all - so that my vote actually influenced the final results .
This is what disenchants me about our democracy .
It does n't really work .
IMHO , we desperately need a single trasferable vote system to make voting worthwhile again .
That way people could vote for their unpopular favorites and influence the outcome of the battle between the dominant parties with one vote .
This can give fringe parties like the Pirate Party or the Greens a much better chance of getting in , diversifying the political landscape .
And if this does n't draw disenchanted voters to the booths , I 'm not sure what will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually took the time before the EP election here in Poland to look for a candidate that I could feel represented by.
The problem is that my candidate was from an unpopular party and that you only get one vote in our voting system.
Essentially that means that I had two choices: vote for my favorite and lose my vote (when the party doesn't cross 5\% the vote is discarded)vote for some people I don't trust at all - so that my vote actually influenced the final results.
This is what disenchants me about our democracy.
It doesn't really work.
IMHO, we desperately need a single trasferable vote system to make voting worthwhile again.
That way people could vote for their unpopular favorites and influence the outcome of the battle between the dominant parties with one vote.
This can give fringe parties like the Pirate Party or the Greens a much better chance of getting in, diversifying the political landscape.
And if this doesn't draw disenchanted voters to the booths, I'm not sure what will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28514653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28506187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28507117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28598721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0136211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28510307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28514653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513189
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28598721
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501183
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28506187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28513293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500821
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28508027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28502213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503027
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28507117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28504293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28505503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28503579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501955
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28500679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0136211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0136211.28501341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
