Talk:Electronic voting

Removed this. Isn't really Electronic voting

Electronic voting systems for electorates have been in use since the 1960s when Punch card voting systems debuted. --SteveFreeman 22:09, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Cleanup

I've tried to clean this up and organize it a little bit. I added a lot more accurate facts and references. I also removed some inaccuracies and commentary. Edit Summary:

• Intro
  • Cleanup language, expand slightly for clarity
• History
  • Add some facts and refs showing actual history
  • Added HAVA info and stats
  • "Georgia became the first e-voting state" is not correct and "two stunning upsets" really sounds like there's an agenda behind it. (even if I agree with it)
• Concerns
  • "Perhaps no development is more worrisome" Really? This seems a bit skewed. More than voter suppression? Caging? Purging?
  • Language/accuracy cleanup
  • "Lack of spot checks" is not necessarily true. There is parallel testing that can be done. Further NIST's software library can be used for spot checks against software.
  • "No public information is available on how the testing is done." That's not true.
  • "Lack of means for dispute resolution" I don't see anything here that is unique to electronic voting.
  • The WaPo article is really pretty inaccurate. States do have access to the software for most systems as well as NIST. See two comments above.
• Comparisons...
  • "conventional" is really a misnomer
  • this entire section is really just commentary.
• I don't think the Lehto paper deserves an entire section. Moved to EL.

Mawh 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

International examples

Doing some cleanup, adding some more examples/countries.

• France:
  • 1.5m votes does not equal 1.5m voters.
  • July 8, 2008 : the Observatoire du Vote (Paris - Brussels) published a survey on electronic voting in France between 2007 and 2008 (sample : 46 cities, 21,000 logs) : the difference between the number of votes and the number of signatures is 6% for traditional ballots and 30% with electronic vote. And this proportion tends to decrease for normal ballots, not for e-vote.

An English link would be preferable or at least someone someone with a better understanding of French could explain what this means, as right now it doesn't make much sense.

Mawh 13:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Some reversions

"Perhaps no development is more worrisome" Really? This seems a bit skewed. More than voter suppression? Caging? Purging?

Original wording was reasonable: Suppression, Caging, Purging can be detected, fought and limited. E-voting fraud may be undetectable, and those who have been declared the losers are left with no recourse to verify results. [8]

• Comparisons... section was not just commentary, but makes this point.

Bellis, Mary. The History of Voting Machines. About.com.

Observatoire du vote