Could a text message voting system work for the presidential election?
Flipping through the channels today I saw a surprising statistic. MTV's show "America's Best Dance Crew" is presenting its finale tonight. The show has a very similar premise to "American Idol" except that its for dance teams. The groups perform once a week and then rely on the dedication/fanaticism of the viewers to text message their vote for the top group. As of about 5pm, over 36,000,000 people had voted for their choice. In 2006, 65 million people voted in the "American Idol" finale.
This made me wonder, how many people voted in the last presidential election?
According to this article over 122 million people voted in the last presidential election. This number represented close to 61% of registered voters, the highest voter turn out since 1968.
But what if voters had the option to send in their vote by text message or online? Imagine if voting for the next leader of our country was as easily accessible as voting for our next "Best Dance Crew". Voter turn-out could potentially sky-rocket. Ballots could be counted instantly with greater accuracy. People who are overseas, bedridden, or who just can't make it to the polls because of work hours could text their choice. Voters who don't drive, are afraid to brave the weather (since it is in November), or are just plain lazy would really have no excuse not to voice their opinion.
In order to vote, you would need your voter registration number (which is automatically assigned to you anyway). In late September/early October, the government would send you that friendly reminder card with a special telephone number and a list of the candidates along with the location of your polling place. If you chose to text message your vote you would use the telephone number provided. In the body of your message you would type your voter registration number followed by the names of your choices for each office. This would ensure that only registered, of-age voters would be able to participate. If there were still problems, maybe a phone-in vote could be instituted with some type of voice recognition program. A password protected website could also work in a similar fashion. Maybe you would have to enter your social security number along with your voter registration number in order to gain access to the list of candidates.
And what if the government also chose to charge 50 cents per text (as many text message voting shows do)? Let's see...50 cents times 122 million is...$61 million of revenue that could be raised from text message voting. This ia money that could go to any government projects; construction, medicare/medicaid, welfare, social security, education, national security, global/environmental conservation, well, you get the picture.
Politicians, supporters, voters, registrars, and democracy saavy folks are always looking for ways to increase voter turn-out. All this time an easy, effective method has been lying in wait under our noses. So break out your cell phones, blackberries, sidekicks, and smartphones and get ready to vote for "America's Next Leader"!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
That sure is an interesting idea, and you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
And that's comin' at ya' from yer local redneck hippie.
That sounds like a pretty fallible situation.
First of all, not everyone has a cell phone, so if you don't want one, or can't afford one, are you disenfranchised?
Also, if we make voting so superficial, which I think texting and the internet would do, the elections would become superficial popularity contests (moreso than they already are).
And do we really want the kind of people voting that wouldn't vote unless it was as easy as a text message? Beyond the active reaching out that is being done right now, I don't really think we should go much further. In the end, if voting is lowered to the accessiblity of particularly apathetic individuals, we will lose the last part of our government that makes it energetic government.
Finally, if we are concerned about electronic voting machines, we should be even more concerned about online voting and voting by something as untraceable as text messages. That would be a system that lead rapidly to completely corrupt government.
Here's how I envision it:
The traditional voting booths would not be eliminated. You wouldn't need to vote by text message or online, that would be your choice.
The text messaging and online voting are meant to be a convience for those who would not be able to make it to a voting booth otherwise. That includes people who may be hospitalized and bed-ridden. Their votes could be extremely important.
Government is supposed to be for everyone, so even if the voters are apathetic, they're still entitled to their vote and their choice. (And if they're so apathetic they probably wouldn't use the text message system anyway).
Finally, voting is supposed to anonymous. Text messages would certainly preserve that anonymity. I'm not sure how that would lead to corrupt government.
You definitely have a point about those who are unable to make it to the polls, but isn't that why we have mail-in ballots. My town just created a program where individuals can be permanently placed on a mail-in voter list, so every time an election rolls around, they get their ballot in the mail, fill in a few convenient bubbles and drop it back in the mail box. I think that's pretty convenient, and pretty worthy.
The thing that makes electronic voting one of the many paths to corrupt government is the fact that it can't be traced, so candidates can win elections by "stuffing ballot boxes" excpet that now it is much easier because all you would have to do is find a computer-savvy person and hack the right number of voting machines. With text messages, though, it gets even easier. Text messages are even less traceable than isolated machines whose sole purpose is to collect votes, and they aren't annonymous, especially in the light of the patriot act. I've never tried, but I would imagine it's not terribly difficult to trace a number to a name especially if you've got some government power.
I do think your idea is really excellent in theory, but the more I think about the reality of it, the more problems it seems to create than the ones we've already got to contend with.
MARTAN!
Cellphone votes? Do you know how easy it would be to forge votes. I'm not saying very fraud doesn't exist now, but it would be worse if we could text message our vote. Is it really that hard to drive to your voting area in your town. Why should we fix something that's not broken?
+mspin
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/weezyf
For some people it is that hard to drive to your voting area, especially in more rural areas. My 87-year-old grandfmother lives in extreme northern New York. Her home is almost 10 miles from her polling place. She has a hard time walking without someone or her walker to lean on. She does not have her driver's license and is reliant on my aunt and few kind neighbors for providing transportation when she needs to get somewhere. So it could be harder than you think.
I think it is a great idea, BUT. It's a security risk. I wish we could get people as excited about presidential elections as they are about dance teams, though. Good post.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
The whole reason I wrote this is because I thought it was ridiculous that so many people are willing to text in a vote for a tv show, but only 60% of registered voters will get out there on election day. I saw that some others have written blogs on the idea and got blasted, so I thought I would at least offer a potential way to do it too.
I'm glad someone finally got my point! :-)
We should stick to the way we've been doing if for years, and now that it's computerized it's easier. Why ruin a good thing?
Alexa
I never suggested that we completely eliminate the traditional method of voting, merely that text messaging could be offered as an option, like absentee ballots.
Please refrain from calling others' posts stupid. It is against ProgressiveU's Terms of Service and could be considered a personal attack.
I can't see text-message voting being feasible in reality. There are too many opportunities for corruption. After all, you are depending on a private corporation to provide a network for these text messages; there's no telling if the corporation is objective or honest. Being as every citizen has the right to an opinion and to register that way, preserving objectivity even at the highest level would be difficult.
Not that our voting system is perfect the way it is. A few years ago, HBO released a documentary called "Hacking Democracy." In it, a grassroots campaign made huge strives to expose the corruption in the American election system. The evidence that was presented was horrific. Paper ballots were being thrown away. Software for voting machines was especially easily to hack, because they work on one network. (Alter the votes on one machine, and you alter the vote count on all of them.) The makers of the voting software were partisan. In Cleveland (circa 2004 or 2005), the leader of the governmental agency that purchased voting software also happened to be the head of the Republican committee of Cleveland. Even after the votes were counted, some governmental agencies would toss the original receipts that held the results of the count. The procedure for double checking accuracy on the results was not random, as it should be.
The overwhelming coincidence makes me believe Hacking Democracy wasn't staged. The documentary didn't endorse either political party, but instead seemed sickened with the system in general. Of course, it hit on the 2000 and 2004 elections, with some hopes that corruption wouldn't be exposed following that, but that hope was in vain. I have trouble seeing how text-message voting provide any solutions to the corruption Americans already face.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
While this is a very interesting idea, I wouldn't count on this ever working. It would be very complicated and VERY expensive.
The 2004 presidential elections cost a total of about $4 billion dollars, half of that spent on advertising and the other half on the voting process itself. And this is only with the traditional voting method, of course. Once you add in internet and text messaging, we would probably be looking at around $20 billion at least. New security measures would have to be set up, they would have to hire way more people to work the elections, deal with the security issues, and do all the computer programming and any other necessary technological work.
And then there is the argument of charging per text message, like on American Idol or other TV shows of that nature. First of all, many traditional voters would most likely opt out of text messaging or internet voting in the beginning. So the small percentage of voters who do choose this option, would hardly bring in enough money to pay for all the expenses. There are more important things the government should be spending money and time on.
Also, charging someone to vote in a government election is unconstitutional. It violates the 24th amendment- the Anti- Poll Tax Amendment. It would be very easy to argue that this does violate the 24th amendment, and would then most likely be taken to the United States Supreme court to be decided. This not only takes a lot of money, but also a lot of time.
And the last thing I would like to mention is the reason I think many Americans don't vote. They just don't care. Most of the people I know who don't vote simply choose not to. They don't see the point because they either don't feel it affects them directly or they don't understand politics and don't want to. And most of the people I know who feel this way are young people, like myself, who make up a huge majority of the texting population. Just because we change the ways of voting doesn't mean we can change the potential voting population .
how lazy are we really becoming? is it that much of a task to pull up voting dates on a web page, mapquest a location, and then find a way to get there to put in a simple vote that determines the path of our country? that is... over your plan which seems to cause a bunch of problems that really aren't neccessary to have for the simple pleasure of fast decision making? it seems like we are hardly giving it any thought with this idea that you suggest. I will not stray from the fact that it is a step into the realms of innovation, but so was the creation of the hydrogen atom bomb. I can't say that i really care about america and where its going, but i can say that i am obliged to care where it is going, by the fact that it does exist as the vessel i and... oh i don't know, the rest of us? are forced to live in. we might as well ensure that our life is of some good quality and what better way to find that out by ensuring that we give a good amount of thought to the really important decisions this country makes. the way that you put it, kind of makes it look like the only people who should be allowed to vote in this country are the ones who actually are willing to find the means to get to a location to contribute their part to such an important decision. what thought are you really giving anything if you are just texting something so you don't have to leave your precious internet and television program. take a friggin book with you if your that worried about missing entertainment and pleasure. you might meet someone and possibly gain so much more than something as lifeless as the products offered by technology.
it really seems to me as another attempt at online dating... i mean if that's what you enjoy... have fun with that, but i think that a path to a great life is mainly through great experiences, and what exactly are you experiencing by just looking at moving RGB? Please tell me if you know and if it is worth experiencing over something like... having your adrenaline flow through out your entire body, serving as a reminder that you are living and you have to create happiness which are contingent upon your decisions. i don't know about anyone else but the internet only provides me with boredom.
The elderly and the infirm still deserve to vote. It is very difficult for some of them to get to a polling place...in some cases it is impossible. If you don't have responsible help or family members to assist you by compiling the necessary paperwork for absentee voting, you don't get a say. That's not lazy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You address plenty of issues in your comment, but there's obviously a method to the madness. For one thing, when you register to vote, they send you a card that has the dates of elections and your specific location. If you live in a city, it's typically within five miles of your house. I can see your point about how accessible voting locations are if that's your situation...and it's actually more valid of a point than defending the elderly and the infirm. For one thing, I doubt that out of the population of people who can be considered infirm, many of them are eligible to vote. This isn't because of their illness or disability...But like the elderly, there exists a system somewhere to get them to their voting locations. Another point is that how many of the elderly and infirm are willing to text-message in their votes? And how can absentee ballots be accounted for?
As for the hydrogen bomb, it's amusing that you pointed it out. With that advent in technology, the "father" of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, claimed he never wanted to see it used.
Online dating? You're going off on a tangent about the Internet--that's what you've got a blog for. To bring it back to voting, there needs to be major reform in the election system of America, but like you, I don't think text messaging is a realistic way to do it.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
I wasn't actually arguing that text messaging is the way to go, just that laziness is not always the reason some people can't get to the polls. It's easy to say the polls are accessible to all when you are able bodied, but if you've ever worked with people who need assistance in their daily lives, you realize what an enormous undertaking even the smallest journeys can be.
There are still a lot of accessibility issues involved in text messaging, some of which you brought up, Jane. Elderly people probably won't know how to text or have access to a cell phone. They may not have internet access. And any elderly or infirm who cannot afford internet access would still be in the same boat. It wouldn't make any difference for them. I'm just saying they can't be called lazy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I like the title but it's hard to imagine a high voter turnout. I can't see people take this show seriouosly because these reality tv shows are just for fun anyway, the athmosphere is quite different. I still applaud you for thinking this idea through. I like the options that texting elections give to individuals who cannot possibly make it to election polls because they have work or can't make time. However, because of the technology that is used in texting elections, hackers can also find a way to rig elections. America should think over that idea though. Perfect it and maybe we will have a higher voter turnout.