![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Electronic voting was copied or moved into Electronic voting by country with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The source cited does not support the following affirmation: "The Brazilian electronic ballot box serves today as a model for other countries.[7]" Even if it did, I believe it's not admissible according to Wikipedia's policies because it's a primary source As a matter of fact, only the election authority itself affirms that other countries use it, but nowhere else can this be confirmed. Especially a source coming from a country that uses it (which one?) would be necessary to support this. IMO this bit should be removed as it is not verifiable at all. 201.86.148.106 ( talk) 23:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Joykim328 ( talk) 07:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)The reliability of the source provided for this citation is questionable. A primary source could serve as bias. Additionally, a hyperlink to a credible source should be added in place of the "citation needed" marking. Other than that all of the other links provided appear to be working just fine. Joykim328 ( talk) 07:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Those working on this article would do well to look at Ronnie Dugger's excellent (although polemical) article "How They Could Steal the Election This Time" in The Nation August 16/23, 2004. Among other things, it's a reasonably good survey of the more worrisome examples of failures (especially security failures) in electronic voting. Along the way, he also names most of the leading critics of electronic voting, although I think he gets the balance a little wrong (former ACM president Barbara Simons is mentioned only in passing, while Bev Harris gets several column inches). Anyway, a fertile source if someone wants to expand this article. -- Jmabel 17:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
While this is an excellent article generally, and that there are some professionals who are extremely biased against internet voting, it is nonetheless, something that is highly relevant to this topic, and one cannot pretend that it does not exits. Internet voting is used everyday by private organizations, and has been used, albeit rarely, for binding votes for at least one presidential primary (Arizona Democratic Primary in March of 2000). No one disputes that that primary was financed by the Democratic party itself, and administered by a contractor, instead of being paid for with tax payer funds, and administered by government employees. Nonetheless, this was a binding election, to help select a candidate for a public office, indeed the highest of all public offices. While one should not object if the facts are carefully qualified, and one should indeed assure that the presentation is balanced, one cannot pretend that it did occur, that voter turnout did increase substantially, that there were no reported security breaches, and that there were no challenges to the material accuracy of the count, unlike the November presidential vote that November in Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing effort to remove all internet voting references and bury them on obscure wiki pages. Even the fact that "internet voting" is routed to this page, and then all references to it are then deleted, seems like an overt and deliberate attempt to mislead. While authors biases are always inevitable, this one is so far over the top. At a minimum, the "internet voting" reference routing of this page should be removed immediately, as this page avoids the topic entirely. Some editors attempts to "bury" all internet voting references on pages people are unlikely to find is shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Nikita Borisov cut the following from the article with the comment "doesn't sound like NPOV, also not sure it's factual."
The only POV issue I can see is the word "stubbornly". However, the material does seem to be factually incorrect, since Germany apparently uses at least some electronic voting; however, here is a 1990 German paper ballot; their 1997 electoral law refers to paper, as in "A voter…who due to a physical handicap is prevented from marking the ballot paper, from placing it in the envelope, from handling the envelope over to the Electoral Officer or from placing it into the ballot box himself or herself may be aided by another person." Can anyone sort this out? Maybe someone from Germany? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Germany has indeed trialled electronic voting. However, it was found to be unconstitutional and Germany's highest court have forbidden the future use of such technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.213.94 ( talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've cut this section, entitled "Testing", from the article to here, for reasons I will explain immediately below:
Many people believe that the " butterfly ballots" did a bad job indicating voter intent. However, analysis shows that all the other voting methods in Florida 2000 were probably even worse ( "Test the System", [7]).
The laws requiring a secret ballot make white box testing of electronic voting machines (and non-electronic voting machines) impossible while they are in use.
How can someone objectively test several types of voting machine to determine which type works best? Is it possible to design voting machines to make it easier to run such tests?
I ( User:Joebeone) thought it might be nice to have a list of people watching this page to connect usernames to credentials, if desired.
User:Prairiefire2 will start to watch this article. I'm the primary author of the entries on election audits and risk-limiting audits, but am a Wikipedia newbie. I'm a retired public-sector auditor and quality-assurance manager, and coordinator of the nonpartisan citizen's group WisconsinElectionIntegrity.org. This article is mis-titled. Its content is not about the activity of e-voting, but seems more to be about elections technology in general. I think a more accurate and useful title would be 'Electronic Voting Technology' or simply 'election technology.' I don't know where to go to suggest that, though--I can see only how to edit 'Talk' entries, not how to make a new one. ( Prairiefire2 ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC))
http://www.vm.ee/estonia/pea_172/kat_340/7025.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4343374.stm
-- 3 Löwi 16:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/25/213206&tid=172&tid=103&tid=17 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Floodo1 ( talk • contribs) 23 Nov 2005.
Electronic voting in parliaments, for some reason, is only associated with the most inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented: the 2,500-year-old two-option majority vote. A computer program, Decision-maker, analyses any voters' profile according to eight different methodologies simultaneously: majority/plurality voting, two-round voting, alternative vote, approval voting, serial voting, a Borda count, a modified Borda count (or preferendum), and a Condorcet count. [www.deborda.org]
Can I just say "huh?" -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Credit for inventing it (& so a %the blame for Florida: Fiasco 2000) goes to William Rouversol... Trekphiler 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I just removed:
from a bullet point about large-scale fraud. This should be somewhere else as it's not evidence of fraud. It is evidence that the (former) Diebold CEO was a republican and that he assisted the campaign and made a dumb remark. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the following contribution in the advantages section:
This is problematic for many reasons. I know of only one country where voting equipment issues some sort of record that is publicly available which indicates how you voted (Kazakhstan). That's problematic due to voter coercion and vote-selling. Some cryptographic voting solutions issue receipts, but they don't indicate how you voted. I think maybe this contributor was trying to get at VVPAT. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite which was recently done by an anon changed the article a lot, and I can't tell what the purpose of the rewrite was. It worries me that the sections about opposition to electronic voting were condensed and moved down in the article.
There were some NPOV improvements in the rewrite, I will acknowledge; for example, a large paragraph of original research opinion about what humans can verify (which appeared to be citing a source, but that source turns out to just be Ken Thompson's classic "Reflections on Trusting Trust"). That did need to go.
However, a section about the disadvantages of Internet voting seems to be missing, as well as links to Bev Harris, Michael Shamos, and the Volusia error.
Most disturbingly, one section used to be NPOVised by the introduction:
It now simply says:
User:68.50.103.212, if you're reading this, can you comment on the reasons behind your rewrite? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:68.50.103.212 just reverted back to his rewrite which removes a lot of information. 68.50.103.212, we need to figure out a way to incorporate the stuff you want in Electronic voting without blasting a lot of good information out of existence. Could we please start a dialog here? (also posted to their talk page) -- Joebeone ( Talk) 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually had an edit conflict with you Joebeone while posting this
Sorry for not commenting on the the discussion page for the rewrite. That was my mistake, but the entire article was riddled with inaccuracies and was very incomplete. The POV in the article was not the reason for my rewrite. I simply wanted to correct the innacuracies and expand the article to include correct information about the modern technology.
After re-reading this, I like your edits. I think it's much more coherent now. Rspeer, can we work to add back pieces that you think should still be there? (Such as having PFAWF in the text to clarify the source, etc.). -- Joebeone ( Talk) 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the test to PFAW is appropriate as it makes it clear where these advantages are coming from to eliminate any POV (many think that PFAW have a very specific POV, and they'd want to know where the info. is coming from). Thoughts? -- Joebeone ( Talk) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the heading, "Possible malfunctions using electronic voting":
The reason I did this is because these aren't possible malfunctions but items about other problems with voting machines... I'm going to try to work these into somewhere else in the article. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article listed a very short number of benefits of electronic voting so I felt enclined to add the following to the relevant section.
Also, Jason Kitcat, although he does speak on electronic voting, has no formal training nor has worked or does work for a company providing eVoting solutions so I took the liberty of changing the link to his blog from "UK-based eVoting expert". -- Doje 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is talking about End-to-end auditable voting systems.
When I first heard a (sketchy) description of E2E, I was as skeptical as Jmabel -- it seemed completely impossible to me, also. Of the ones I've looked at, I found ThreeBallot the easiest one for me to understand, so let's use it for an example.
Please help me improve the descriptions of each of the End-to-end auditable voting systems articles so they are less "sketchy" and answer all these questions for the next reader. -- 70.130.47.149 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question.
ThreeBallot can be implemented using the mark-sense paper ballot counting machines currently in use where I vote. Such an implementation is a kind of mark-sense ballot form, so it has no advantage over every mark-sense form.
Perhaps you are asking "What advantage do end-to-end auditable voting systems have over other voting systems that are not end-to-end auditable?"
The whole point of all the end-to-end auditable voting systems is that they satisfy 2 seemingly contradictory requirements:
The simple mark-sense ballots currently in use fulfill (b), but not (a). With simple mark-sense forms, what prevents a small conspiracy among some of the people who count the ballots from "flipping" votes, forcing their candidate to win? And if there is no conspiracy, how do you convince the losing candidate that there was no such conspiracy?
The "Everyone in favor, raise up your hand" style voting fulfills (a), but not (b).
With end-to-end auditable voting systems, you get both (a) and (b). If ballots are "flipped", then the voters who cast those ballots have proof that tampering occurred somewhere. If no voters blow the whistle, then the losing candidate must come to the conclusion that either (a) the election was fair, or (b) none of his supporters care enough to blow the whistle on his behalf.
Does that answer your question? -- 70.130.45.233 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The main criticism from me, and from slashdot.org as well isn't the lack of a person counting, but the lack of a paper trail. There's no possibility of a recount with Diebold machines, and some others. Once you've voted, you have no idea what was recorded, and there's no way that it can be verified that the machine's data didn't get corrupted somewhere along the way.
I have heard of some machines which do, however print a receipt out to show you what you voted for, and if it's correct you tell the machine that you are finished and it drops that receipt into a box. -khanjar24@nospam gmail.com
Incidentally: there is a difference between "voter-verifiable" and "voter-verified". In the former case, the voter can check that their vote was properly registered. In the latter case the voter does check that their vote was properly registered.
Why was this page marked for clean up? There was no reason given on this page or any of the Wikipedia:cleanup related pages. It seems to me this article is one of the better Wikipedia articles availaible. I made some significant updates and I would say it's clean. I'm going to take down the cleanup tag, if there any objections, please lets discuss.
Electiontechnology 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I find this separation to have a significantly mollifying effect on the arguments against the use of electronic voting, and if I were a lawyer trying to defend a voting machine company, this would be my first move when putting together my arguments.
Opposition and possible malfunctions are most certainly not separate issues. Indeed, most of the time if (the consequences of) possible malfunctions were remedied (e.g. by having a voter verified paper trail with random audits, etc.) much of the opposition would disappear. For these reasons I recommend that these two sections be merged, somehow, perhaps by the creation of a section called "Current criticisms of electronic voting in the United States".
In support of this merger, it should also be noted that problems with electronic voting are issues largely related not to electronic voting per se but instead to how the US is currently implementing electronic voting. Again, most if not all of the criticisms leveled against electronic voting could be relatively easily dealt with (at least when compared to the magnitude of the operation required to implement electronic voting in the first place). LeoTrottier 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
Also, why is the section labelled "possible malfunctions". Aren't the instances listed documented and verified problems caused by the use and/or misuse of electronic voting machines? Shouldn't it simply be "instances of voting machine malfunction". LeoTrottier 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Finally: if we're willing to list the 'advantages' of electronic voting, shouldn't we also list the disadvantages? At the very least, it is certainly a disadvantage that electronic systems are more complicated and (at least up front) more expensive than paper ones. LeoTrottier 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this article's sections are still too biased in favour of electronic voting. For example the section about Ontario municipal and provincial elections (where I live) implies that it's only a matter of time until electronic voting spreads. I don't know if that's true--there are doubts about its reliability, so we mostly still use paper ballots in Canada. One could equally rephrase it to say something like "Many municipalities still insist on using electronic voting methods" which would imply that it was on its way out. Dan Carkner 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I don't mean to be dense, but what about that section "implies that it's only a matter of time until electronic voting spreads?" It seems to me to be an observational list of examples of electronic voting as the title suggests. Other than rephrasing to add a POV statement like you mentioned, what would be needed to correct the section? -- Electiontechnology 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Above in #Criticism of E-Voting is off I think I've given the outline of some of the most important case against. But someone needs to do the legwork to cite for this and get it into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We have "electronic voting in ..." pages for many countries, save the one in which e-voting is causing the most controversy. Why is this??
Someone just added:
I added a need for cite, fixed some grammar, and moved to a more appropriate section. Does anyone know more about this? Can anyone verify or update it? It's pretty poorly worded. Electiontechnology 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Does this model produce a truly voter-verifiable paper record? My understanding is the Dieblod models require the voter to use a barcode scanner to read the paper record, which is not voter-verification. The scanner is doing the verification, and the voter is merely reading what the scanner reports. If there is some agreement that this model isn't truly voter-verifialbe, the photograph of this model should be removed, or at least moved from the section about VVPAT. Awinkle 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We mention voter-verifiable paper trail several times, but we don't even mention that not every paper-trail system is voter-verifiable, because not every paper-trail system is human-readable. For example, there are systems involving bar codes that sharee the advantage of a permanent paper record, but don't have the advantage of voter-verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few edits, but the problem is that I don't have citable sources for most of what I know about this. A few of the key critics are people I know personally through CPSR; for the most part I've learned my way around this from meetings and talks, rather than from written materials. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if this is going to be listed, it need some sort of explanation. This wasn't any sort of a scientific study and the "1022" incidents include many duplicates, second hand stories, news clippings, and some completely irrelevant stories that are not an "incident" of anything. Please check out the data: http://www.votersunite.org/info/2006E-VotingReports.xls Here are a choice few:
All is all the "conclusions" drawn by this study are based of poor data with zero scientific relevance. I think at best it would be misleading to include it in its current form. - Electiontechnology 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask where you got "report" from. To answer your question I moved it to the talk page because in it's then current form was POV and inaccurate. I wanted to start a discussion about how to post it in an accurate form. It's clear that the there are duplicates and inaccuracies in the data for the report. We don't currently know how many or how inaccurate. I think without being qualified this link is POV. Since the section title is "Documented problems" I think it would be useful to link the data there and then the study in the "Advocacy, Commentary, and Criticism" section.
References
Absentee Voting is still a means of a secret ballot - the second person needed is to verify the signature on the sealed envelope containing the voter's marked ballot, which is then inserted into an outside envelope to be mailed to their registrar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozart54 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2007.(moved by Electiontechnology 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
The EIRS data needs to be appropriately quantified. It is a raw dump of unvalidated national hotline data including requests for sample ballots (#12167), second hand radio reports (#14216), any report of machines without papertrails (#16472, #28804) and dozens of blank entries as well many other similar "incidents" all labeled a "machine problems." Please view the data: https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRExportMapNation&tab=ED04&cat=02&start_date=&start_time=00%3A00&end_date=&end_time=00%3A00&search=&go=Search -- Electiontechnology 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is very little information about recent elections in Venezuela. Since 2004, the recall referendum of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela has implemented e-voting technologies that have been controversial since the begining. Recall referendum results were considered electoral fraud by many. Including a study made by Ricardo Haussman along with Roberto Rigobón, professors at Harvard and MIT, one of them Dean, who claimed there was 99% of electoral fraud probability.
These unconfidence in the elections and democracy heavilly influenced Chavez's opposition in their determination to boycott the 2005 legislative elections, that were made and ended with the result of Chavez's coalition of parties winning all seats in parliament. Since then, critics have raised of authoritarism in Venezuelan government decisions, including the shutdown of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest TV network, and a constitutional reform that will transform Venezuela into a socialist republic with no term limits for President (both head of government and head of state in Venezuela). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.35.230 ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Taintain, please read more carefully before editing. Much of the content is already in the article. I will outline the changes below. Additionally following Wikipedia guidelines on Criticism and generally improving the article, the criticisms are disbursed throughout the article in the relevant sections.
-- Electiontechnology 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Taintain 11:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
References
A merge has been proposed see Talk:DRE voting machine#Merge Proposal: Electronic Voting. -- Electiontechnology 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The designing of voting software may interfere with personal anonymity, since the right to vote is by registration. Software which respects the privacy of the voter should encrypt through a Secure Shell file system information entered to be permanently recorded. Open source software such as Wikipedia could allow names of voters to be listed who receive a public-key to a private page. Time dependent public-keys need to be issued and secured. Time dependent one way transfer of information from forms on those pages must be served to a client, by ssh and logged. But most of all the pages and public-keys which are issued to the voter must be preserved during the voter's lifetime and become the private property of that voter. In case of fraud (the use of aliases) the owners of such records produce front organizations (some of which are illegal. If one voter gets only one vote, is it guaranteed that how he votes will remain private? Upon the death of the voter the pages should become open to the public.
-- Electiontechnology ( talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Content below was added by user Electronic Voting Preso. It is somewhat confusingly short list of seemingly randomly chosen few voting systems written as if it were a complete list. Each machine is listed with some correct though nominal and seemingly not very relevant information. All of which is filed under "2008 Presidential Elections" heading. If the list was cleaned up for relevancy and made more complete I think it could be a nice addition. -- Electiontechnology ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
References
This article starts off well, but significantly gets worse... like the testing and certification section is pretty bad. There's no mention at all of the CA TTBR, OH EVEREST or the various SAIT-lead technical evaluations of various voting systems. These are important because they were coordinated, academic hardware and software security investigations. Having been a part of two of these efforts (CA and OH), I feel they need addition to this article... we found that the four major vendors' systems didn't meent even the most basic notion of best practice in software and security engineering. I can propose a few edits. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been working on this article, and I'm not going to jump in and try to decide the threshold of notability, so I'm just putting this here as something possibly worth mentioning, for someone more actively working on the article. Kim Zetter, Arkansas Election Officials Baffled by Machines that Flipped Race, Wired Blog Network, May 29, 2008. A pretty serious malfunction. I picked this up off a mention/link in ACM TechNews. Not sure that Wired Blog Network meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, so someone might want to seek a stronger source. On the other hand, ACM TechNews is pretty solid: if they linked it, someone there obviously considered the story valid. - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is the section detailing the pros and cons of E-voting over paper voting? To me, I think Paper voting is much easier, cheaper, faster to count, and more secure than evoting (in Canada anyways). I've worked as a voting officer for a number of elections, and have read about an number of election machines. I'm not an expert in anycase, but I would not trust that my vote has been counted unless a human personally verified it. A paper vote is very secure. There are a number of checks to ensure that the correct person has been giving one vote, that the person returns one, and the same vote, and that the vote is counted correctly. It takes about an hour to count, recount, and verifiy the count after the polls have closed, and the votes are saved for a period of time incase there is need of another recount. The only problems of paper votes that I've encountered, have been spoiled votes, which is less than 1%; where the person either misunderstood the concept of marking one square, or the intention of the voter was not clear. I'd rather that than a large section of votes not count because the machine was on the fritz, a poweroutage, unskilled election workers, or hackers making all the votes suspect. I understand that machines make the counting of multiple issues easier and faster, but is that the only reason they are used over paper votes? Anyways, what I'm saying, is there needs to be a section about the pros of evoting, and why it is better than paper votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.19.243 ( talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see a discussion of this! Also, why was e-voting introduced? A history section would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.213.94 ( talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this voting system or have any references that could help? There's TopVoter.com, which I believe is Slovenian. (not an easy one to find a translator for) Any help is appreciated. -- Electiontechnology ( talk) 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the reference to the movie " Uncounted" by 71.178.193.134 without citing a reason for its removal since this is current criticism of current electronic voting technology.
I am also going to include " Hacking Democracy", another documentary by HBO critical of our current eVoting technology.
Softtest123 ( talk) 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been several reports of vote-flipping, whereby the vote of a person switches from their intended vote to a vote for another candidate.
For example, the cases in West Virginia, and other Appalachian states. [13] [14]
Why isn't vote-flipping addressed in the article? Dogru144 ( talk) 08:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage seems to be all about the machinery. I agree with Electiontechnology; there just isn't enough material for the listing of companies that offer software and ASP to not be unbalanced and almost advertising. Also the Discussion page seems to have migrated to his talk page :o) However, it seems to me that if we can get other information that doesn't cross the line into advertising, ie general info without brand names, that Application Service Provider info would help the article. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
List of election controversies has been added based on the following http://en.wikipedia.org/?search=List+of+election+controversies&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search -- 222.64.21.146 ( talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Electronic voting by country has been added based on the following
Unfortunately I do not know anything about the topic to write a proper piece on it, but I have heard in the news many times that the E-Voting systems purchased for Irish elections around 2001 were used once, then found to be sub-standard (easily hackable etc.) and have been put in storage for years costing the taxpayer millions per year. Today I seen a piece on the news that the government has decided to try and sell the machines. Could someone put this into encyclopedic prose that knows what theyre talking about? thanks Dylan ( talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Its silly to lump all e-voting together like article does at this moment. Those voting machines in polling stations in US are totally different from voting over internet in Estonia. Basically article should be divided in 2, one part for voting machines and other part for all kinds of remote voting.-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think all or almost all of the instances in Electronic_voting#Documented_problems are inappropriate content for an encyclopedia: it is not anywhere near a complete list, and there is no apparent basis on which the material was chosen (e.g. political impact, major lawsuit, new type of technical problem) One of the instances apparently involves 3 voters! The only ones I think significant are : Premier Election Solution in California (tho it seems to have a separate section of its own which should be integrated), India 2009, Netherlands 2006, possible Sarasota 2006in view of earlier year problems in that state, Finland 2009, DC 2010, NSW 2015. The policies involved are NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, per /info/en/?search=Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove .
The article has enough mentions of Electronic Voting technologies being used in non-US countries, e.g. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Ireland,Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Romania, Switzerland, Venezuela and the Philippines.
Interestingly enough, the "worldwide view" depicted in the article is generally a more advanced view of voting technology than what is customarily seen in the United States. That is to say, the U.S. still shows (2016) a technological state of affairs that is considerably lagging behind the corresponding panorama in several other countries. -- AVM ( talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/defeat.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The South Africa and Nigeria sections that were added two weeks ago by Revision 865763809 are mostly BS.
They for sure are not neutral, have false and deceptive assertions, and a lot of unintelligible or irrelevant content.
Example:
E-voting is a new technology has been implemented by developed countries; most of the research has embraced this technology within this context. Therefore, there is a necessity to explore the implementation and adoption of this technology in developing countries such as South Africa
It would probably be best to undo the revision altogether, but if someone has a will to fact-check it some parts might be salvaged.
Gcrvo ( talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Many countries have summary sections in this article. Even more countries are summarized in Electronic voting by country. Many countries also have individual articles, like Electronic voting in Brazil. So new information has to be added to the individual country articles, then summarized in Electronic voting by country, then evaluated whether to summarize here too. Or people add info here without putting it in the other articles. It's hard to keep three places consistent.
I suggest moving the individual country sections from here to Electronic voting by country, so only two places for each country will need to be maintained. That will leave this article as a general discussion of issues which affect the various countries, and it will be easier to maintain and more manageable in size. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You can become rich by the following: You must be eligible to listen You must be focused \\ \\ \\ smart
If you can follow this,you will be a rich person.@[[User:Www.itech 102.89.47.232 ( talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Electronic voting was copied or moved into Electronic voting by country with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The source cited does not support the following affirmation: "The Brazilian electronic ballot box serves today as a model for other countries.[7]" Even if it did, I believe it's not admissible according to Wikipedia's policies because it's a primary source As a matter of fact, only the election authority itself affirms that other countries use it, but nowhere else can this be confirmed. Especially a source coming from a country that uses it (which one?) would be necessary to support this. IMO this bit should be removed as it is not verifiable at all. 201.86.148.106 ( talk) 23:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Joykim328 ( talk) 07:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)The reliability of the source provided for this citation is questionable. A primary source could serve as bias. Additionally, a hyperlink to a credible source should be added in place of the "citation needed" marking. Other than that all of the other links provided appear to be working just fine. Joykim328 ( talk) 07:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Those working on this article would do well to look at Ronnie Dugger's excellent (although polemical) article "How They Could Steal the Election This Time" in The Nation August 16/23, 2004. Among other things, it's a reasonably good survey of the more worrisome examples of failures (especially security failures) in electronic voting. Along the way, he also names most of the leading critics of electronic voting, although I think he gets the balance a little wrong (former ACM president Barbara Simons is mentioned only in passing, while Bev Harris gets several column inches). Anyway, a fertile source if someone wants to expand this article. -- Jmabel 17:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
While this is an excellent article generally, and that there are some professionals who are extremely biased against internet voting, it is nonetheless, something that is highly relevant to this topic, and one cannot pretend that it does not exits. Internet voting is used everyday by private organizations, and has been used, albeit rarely, for binding votes for at least one presidential primary (Arizona Democratic Primary in March of 2000). No one disputes that that primary was financed by the Democratic party itself, and administered by a contractor, instead of being paid for with tax payer funds, and administered by government employees. Nonetheless, this was a binding election, to help select a candidate for a public office, indeed the highest of all public offices. While one should not object if the facts are carefully qualified, and one should indeed assure that the presentation is balanced, one cannot pretend that it did occur, that voter turnout did increase substantially, that there were no reported security breaches, and that there were no challenges to the material accuracy of the count, unlike the November presidential vote that November in Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an ongoing effort to remove all internet voting references and bury them on obscure wiki pages. Even the fact that "internet voting" is routed to this page, and then all references to it are then deleted, seems like an overt and deliberate attempt to mislead. While authors biases are always inevitable, this one is so far over the top. At a minimum, the "internet voting" reference routing of this page should be removed immediately, as this page avoids the topic entirely. Some editors attempts to "bury" all internet voting references on pages people are unlikely to find is shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Nikita Borisov cut the following from the article with the comment "doesn't sound like NPOV, also not sure it's factual."
The only POV issue I can see is the word "stubbornly". However, the material does seem to be factually incorrect, since Germany apparently uses at least some electronic voting; however, here is a 1990 German paper ballot; their 1997 electoral law refers to paper, as in "A voter…who due to a physical handicap is prevented from marking the ballot paper, from placing it in the envelope, from handling the envelope over to the Electoral Officer or from placing it into the ballot box himself or herself may be aided by another person." Can anyone sort this out? Maybe someone from Germany? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Germany has indeed trialled electronic voting. However, it was found to be unconstitutional and Germany's highest court have forbidden the future use of such technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.213.94 ( talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've cut this section, entitled "Testing", from the article to here, for reasons I will explain immediately below:
Many people believe that the " butterfly ballots" did a bad job indicating voter intent. However, analysis shows that all the other voting methods in Florida 2000 were probably even worse ( "Test the System", [7]).
The laws requiring a secret ballot make white box testing of electronic voting machines (and non-electronic voting machines) impossible while they are in use.
How can someone objectively test several types of voting machine to determine which type works best? Is it possible to design voting machines to make it easier to run such tests?
I ( User:Joebeone) thought it might be nice to have a list of people watching this page to connect usernames to credentials, if desired.
User:Prairiefire2 will start to watch this article. I'm the primary author of the entries on election audits and risk-limiting audits, but am a Wikipedia newbie. I'm a retired public-sector auditor and quality-assurance manager, and coordinator of the nonpartisan citizen's group WisconsinElectionIntegrity.org. This article is mis-titled. Its content is not about the activity of e-voting, but seems more to be about elections technology in general. I think a more accurate and useful title would be 'Electronic Voting Technology' or simply 'election technology.' I don't know where to go to suggest that, though--I can see only how to edit 'Talk' entries, not how to make a new one. ( Prairiefire2 ( talk) 16:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC))
http://www.vm.ee/estonia/pea_172/kat_340/7025.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4343374.stm
-- 3 Löwi 16:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/25/213206&tid=172&tid=103&tid=17 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Floodo1 ( talk • contribs) 23 Nov 2005.
Electronic voting in parliaments, for some reason, is only associated with the most inaccurate measure of collective opinion ever invented: the 2,500-year-old two-option majority vote. A computer program, Decision-maker, analyses any voters' profile according to eight different methodologies simultaneously: majority/plurality voting, two-round voting, alternative vote, approval voting, serial voting, a Borda count, a modified Borda count (or preferendum), and a Condorcet count. [www.deborda.org]
Can I just say "huh?" -- Jmabel | Talk 07:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Credit for inventing it (& so a %the blame for Florida: Fiasco 2000) goes to William Rouversol... Trekphiler 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I just removed:
from a bullet point about large-scale fraud. This should be somewhere else as it's not evidence of fraud. It is evidence that the (former) Diebold CEO was a republican and that he assisted the campaign and made a dumb remark. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the following contribution in the advantages section:
This is problematic for many reasons. I know of only one country where voting equipment issues some sort of record that is publicly available which indicates how you voted (Kazakhstan). That's problematic due to voter coercion and vote-selling. Some cryptographic voting solutions issue receipts, but they don't indicate how you voted. I think maybe this contributor was trying to get at VVPAT. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite which was recently done by an anon changed the article a lot, and I can't tell what the purpose of the rewrite was. It worries me that the sections about opposition to electronic voting were condensed and moved down in the article.
There were some NPOV improvements in the rewrite, I will acknowledge; for example, a large paragraph of original research opinion about what humans can verify (which appeared to be citing a source, but that source turns out to just be Ken Thompson's classic "Reflections on Trusting Trust"). That did need to go.
However, a section about the disadvantages of Internet voting seems to be missing, as well as links to Bev Harris, Michael Shamos, and the Volusia error.
Most disturbingly, one section used to be NPOVised by the introduction:
It now simply says:
User:68.50.103.212, if you're reading this, can you comment on the reasons behind your rewrite? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:68.50.103.212 just reverted back to his rewrite which removes a lot of information. 68.50.103.212, we need to figure out a way to incorporate the stuff you want in Electronic voting without blasting a lot of good information out of existence. Could we please start a dialog here? (also posted to their talk page) -- Joebeone ( Talk) 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually had an edit conflict with you Joebeone while posting this
Sorry for not commenting on the the discussion page for the rewrite. That was my mistake, but the entire article was riddled with inaccuracies and was very incomplete. The POV in the article was not the reason for my rewrite. I simply wanted to correct the innacuracies and expand the article to include correct information about the modern technology.
After re-reading this, I like your edits. I think it's much more coherent now. Rspeer, can we work to add back pieces that you think should still be there? (Such as having PFAWF in the text to clarify the source, etc.). -- Joebeone ( Talk) 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the test to PFAW is appropriate as it makes it clear where these advantages are coming from to eliminate any POV (many think that PFAW have a very specific POV, and they'd want to know where the info. is coming from). Thoughts? -- Joebeone ( Talk) 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I just removed the following from the heading, "Possible malfunctions using electronic voting":
The reason I did this is because these aren't possible malfunctions but items about other problems with voting machines... I'm going to try to work these into somewhere else in the article. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 15:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This article listed a very short number of benefits of electronic voting so I felt enclined to add the following to the relevant section.
Also, Jason Kitcat, although he does speak on electronic voting, has no formal training nor has worked or does work for a company providing eVoting solutions so I took the liberty of changing the link to his blog from "UK-based eVoting expert". -- Doje 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is talking about End-to-end auditable voting systems.
When I first heard a (sketchy) description of E2E, I was as skeptical as Jmabel -- it seemed completely impossible to me, also. Of the ones I've looked at, I found ThreeBallot the easiest one for me to understand, so let's use it for an example.
Please help me improve the descriptions of each of the End-to-end auditable voting systems articles so they are less "sketchy" and answer all these questions for the next reader. -- 70.130.47.149 03:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your question.
ThreeBallot can be implemented using the mark-sense paper ballot counting machines currently in use where I vote. Such an implementation is a kind of mark-sense ballot form, so it has no advantage over every mark-sense form.
Perhaps you are asking "What advantage do end-to-end auditable voting systems have over other voting systems that are not end-to-end auditable?"
The whole point of all the end-to-end auditable voting systems is that they satisfy 2 seemingly contradictory requirements:
The simple mark-sense ballots currently in use fulfill (b), but not (a). With simple mark-sense forms, what prevents a small conspiracy among some of the people who count the ballots from "flipping" votes, forcing their candidate to win? And if there is no conspiracy, how do you convince the losing candidate that there was no such conspiracy?
The "Everyone in favor, raise up your hand" style voting fulfills (a), but not (b).
With end-to-end auditable voting systems, you get both (a) and (b). If ballots are "flipped", then the voters who cast those ballots have proof that tampering occurred somewhere. If no voters blow the whistle, then the losing candidate must come to the conclusion that either (a) the election was fair, or (b) none of his supporters care enough to blow the whistle on his behalf.
Does that answer your question? -- 70.130.45.233 09:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The main criticism from me, and from slashdot.org as well isn't the lack of a person counting, but the lack of a paper trail. There's no possibility of a recount with Diebold machines, and some others. Once you've voted, you have no idea what was recorded, and there's no way that it can be verified that the machine's data didn't get corrupted somewhere along the way.
I have heard of some machines which do, however print a receipt out to show you what you voted for, and if it's correct you tell the machine that you are finished and it drops that receipt into a box. -khanjar24@nospam gmail.com
Incidentally: there is a difference between "voter-verifiable" and "voter-verified". In the former case, the voter can check that their vote was properly registered. In the latter case the voter does check that their vote was properly registered.
Why was this page marked for clean up? There was no reason given on this page or any of the Wikipedia:cleanup related pages. It seems to me this article is one of the better Wikipedia articles availaible. I made some significant updates and I would say it's clean. I'm going to take down the cleanup tag, if there any objections, please lets discuss.
Electiontechnology 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I find this separation to have a significantly mollifying effect on the arguments against the use of electronic voting, and if I were a lawyer trying to defend a voting machine company, this would be my first move when putting together my arguments.
Opposition and possible malfunctions are most certainly not separate issues. Indeed, most of the time if (the consequences of) possible malfunctions were remedied (e.g. by having a voter verified paper trail with random audits, etc.) much of the opposition would disappear. For these reasons I recommend that these two sections be merged, somehow, perhaps by the creation of a section called "Current criticisms of electronic voting in the United States".
In support of this merger, it should also be noted that problems with electronic voting are issues largely related not to electronic voting per se but instead to how the US is currently implementing electronic voting. Again, most if not all of the criticisms leveled against electronic voting could be relatively easily dealt with (at least when compared to the magnitude of the operation required to implement electronic voting in the first place). LeoTrottier 05:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
Also, why is the section labelled "possible malfunctions". Aren't the instances listed documented and verified problems caused by the use and/or misuse of electronic voting machines? Shouldn't it simply be "instances of voting machine malfunction". LeoTrottier 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Finally: if we're willing to list the 'advantages' of electronic voting, shouldn't we also list the disadvantages? At the very least, it is certainly a disadvantage that electronic systems are more complicated and (at least up front) more expensive than paper ones. LeoTrottier 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this article's sections are still too biased in favour of electronic voting. For example the section about Ontario municipal and provincial elections (where I live) implies that it's only a matter of time until electronic voting spreads. I don't know if that's true--there are doubts about its reliability, so we mostly still use paper ballots in Canada. One could equally rephrase it to say something like "Many municipalities still insist on using electronic voting methods" which would imply that it was on its way out. Dan Carkner 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I don't mean to be dense, but what about that section "implies that it's only a matter of time until electronic voting spreads?" It seems to me to be an observational list of examples of electronic voting as the title suggests. Other than rephrasing to add a POV statement like you mentioned, what would be needed to correct the section? -- Electiontechnology 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Above in #Criticism of E-Voting is off I think I've given the outline of some of the most important case against. But someone needs to do the legwork to cite for this and get it into the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We have "electronic voting in ..." pages for many countries, save the one in which e-voting is causing the most controversy. Why is this??
Someone just added:
I added a need for cite, fixed some grammar, and moved to a more appropriate section. Does anyone know more about this? Can anyone verify or update it? It's pretty poorly worded. Electiontechnology 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Does this model produce a truly voter-verifiable paper record? My understanding is the Dieblod models require the voter to use a barcode scanner to read the paper record, which is not voter-verification. The scanner is doing the verification, and the voter is merely reading what the scanner reports. If there is some agreement that this model isn't truly voter-verifialbe, the photograph of this model should be removed, or at least moved from the section about VVPAT. Awinkle 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
We mention voter-verifiable paper trail several times, but we don't even mention that not every paper-trail system is voter-verifiable, because not every paper-trail system is human-readable. For example, there are systems involving bar codes that sharee the advantage of a permanent paper record, but don't have the advantage of voter-verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made a few edits, but the problem is that I don't have citable sources for most of what I know about this. A few of the key critics are people I know personally through CPSR; for the most part I've learned my way around this from meetings and talks, rather than from written materials. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if this is going to be listed, it need some sort of explanation. This wasn't any sort of a scientific study and the "1022" incidents include many duplicates, second hand stories, news clippings, and some completely irrelevant stories that are not an "incident" of anything. Please check out the data: http://www.votersunite.org/info/2006E-VotingReports.xls Here are a choice few:
All is all the "conclusions" drawn by this study are based of poor data with zero scientific relevance. I think at best it would be misleading to include it in its current form. - Electiontechnology 05:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask where you got "report" from. To answer your question I moved it to the talk page because in it's then current form was POV and inaccurate. I wanted to start a discussion about how to post it in an accurate form. It's clear that the there are duplicates and inaccuracies in the data for the report. We don't currently know how many or how inaccurate. I think without being qualified this link is POV. Since the section title is "Documented problems" I think it would be useful to link the data there and then the study in the "Advocacy, Commentary, and Criticism" section.
References
Absentee Voting is still a means of a secret ballot - the second person needed is to verify the signature on the sealed envelope containing the voter's marked ballot, which is then inserted into an outside envelope to be mailed to their registrar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mozart54 ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2007.(moved by Electiontechnology 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
The EIRS data needs to be appropriately quantified. It is a raw dump of unvalidated national hotline data including requests for sample ballots (#12167), second hand radio reports (#14216), any report of machines without papertrails (#16472, #28804) and dozens of blank entries as well many other similar "incidents" all labeled a "machine problems." Please view the data: https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRExportMapNation&tab=ED04&cat=02&start_date=&start_time=00%3A00&end_date=&end_time=00%3A00&search=&go=Search -- Electiontechnology 01:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is very little information about recent elections in Venezuela. Since 2004, the recall referendum of Hugo Chávez, Venezuela has implemented e-voting technologies that have been controversial since the begining. Recall referendum results were considered electoral fraud by many. Including a study made by Ricardo Haussman along with Roberto Rigobón, professors at Harvard and MIT, one of them Dean, who claimed there was 99% of electoral fraud probability.
These unconfidence in the elections and democracy heavilly influenced Chavez's opposition in their determination to boycott the 2005 legislative elections, that were made and ended with the result of Chavez's coalition of parties winning all seats in parliament. Since then, critics have raised of authoritarism in Venezuelan government decisions, including the shutdown of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest TV network, and a constitutional reform that will transform Venezuela into a socialist republic with no term limits for President (both head of government and head of state in Venezuela). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.35.230 ( talk) 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Taintain, please read more carefully before editing. Much of the content is already in the article. I will outline the changes below. Additionally following Wikipedia guidelines on Criticism and generally improving the article, the criticisms are disbursed throughout the article in the relevant sections.
-- Electiontechnology 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
-- Taintain 11:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
References
A merge has been proposed see Talk:DRE voting machine#Merge Proposal: Electronic Voting. -- Electiontechnology 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The designing of voting software may interfere with personal anonymity, since the right to vote is by registration. Software which respects the privacy of the voter should encrypt through a Secure Shell file system information entered to be permanently recorded. Open source software such as Wikipedia could allow names of voters to be listed who receive a public-key to a private page. Time dependent public-keys need to be issued and secured. Time dependent one way transfer of information from forms on those pages must be served to a client, by ssh and logged. But most of all the pages and public-keys which are issued to the voter must be preserved during the voter's lifetime and become the private property of that voter. In case of fraud (the use of aliases) the owners of such records produce front organizations (some of which are illegal. If one voter gets only one vote, is it guaranteed that how he votes will remain private? Upon the death of the voter the pages should become open to the public.
-- Electiontechnology ( talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Content below was added by user Electronic Voting Preso. It is somewhat confusingly short list of seemingly randomly chosen few voting systems written as if it were a complete list. Each machine is listed with some correct though nominal and seemingly not very relevant information. All of which is filed under "2008 Presidential Elections" heading. If the list was cleaned up for relevancy and made more complete I think it could be a nice addition. -- Electiontechnology ( talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
References
This article starts off well, but significantly gets worse... like the testing and certification section is pretty bad. There's no mention at all of the CA TTBR, OH EVEREST or the various SAIT-lead technical evaluations of various voting systems. These are important because they were coordinated, academic hardware and software security investigations. Having been a part of two of these efforts (CA and OH), I feel they need addition to this article... we found that the four major vendors' systems didn't meent even the most basic notion of best practice in software and security engineering. I can propose a few edits. -- Joebeone ( Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been working on this article, and I'm not going to jump in and try to decide the threshold of notability, so I'm just putting this here as something possibly worth mentioning, for someone more actively working on the article. Kim Zetter, Arkansas Election Officials Baffled by Machines that Flipped Race, Wired Blog Network, May 29, 2008. A pretty serious malfunction. I picked this up off a mention/link in ACM TechNews. Not sure that Wired Blog Network meets Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, so someone might want to seek a stronger source. On the other hand, ACM TechNews is pretty solid: if they linked it, someone there obviously considered the story valid. - Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Where is the section detailing the pros and cons of E-voting over paper voting? To me, I think Paper voting is much easier, cheaper, faster to count, and more secure than evoting (in Canada anyways). I've worked as a voting officer for a number of elections, and have read about an number of election machines. I'm not an expert in anycase, but I would not trust that my vote has been counted unless a human personally verified it. A paper vote is very secure. There are a number of checks to ensure that the correct person has been giving one vote, that the person returns one, and the same vote, and that the vote is counted correctly. It takes about an hour to count, recount, and verifiy the count after the polls have closed, and the votes are saved for a period of time incase there is need of another recount. The only problems of paper votes that I've encountered, have been spoiled votes, which is less than 1%; where the person either misunderstood the concept of marking one square, or the intention of the voter was not clear. I'd rather that than a large section of votes not count because the machine was on the fritz, a poweroutage, unskilled election workers, or hackers making all the votes suspect. I understand that machines make the counting of multiple issues easier and faster, but is that the only reason they are used over paper votes? Anyways, what I'm saying, is there needs to be a section about the pros of evoting, and why it is better than paper votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.19.243 ( talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see a discussion of this! Also, why was e-voting introduced? A history section would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.213.94 ( talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this voting system or have any references that could help? There's TopVoter.com, which I believe is Slovenian. (not an easy one to find a translator for) Any help is appreciated. -- Electiontechnology ( talk) 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the reference to the movie " Uncounted" by 71.178.193.134 without citing a reason for its removal since this is current criticism of current electronic voting technology.
I am also going to include " Hacking Democracy", another documentary by HBO critical of our current eVoting technology.
Softtest123 ( talk) 16:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been several reports of vote-flipping, whereby the vote of a person switches from their intended vote to a vote for another candidate.
For example, the cases in West Virginia, and other Appalachian states. [13] [14]
Why isn't vote-flipping addressed in the article? Dogru144 ( talk) 08:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Press coverage seems to be all about the machinery. I agree with Electiontechnology; there just isn't enough material for the listing of companies that offer software and ASP to not be unbalanced and almost advertising. Also the Discussion page seems to have migrated to his talk page :o) However, it seems to me that if we can get other information that doesn't cross the line into advertising, ie general info without brand names, that Application Service Provider info would help the article. Anarchangel ( talk) 08:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
List of election controversies has been added based on the following http://en.wikipedia.org/?search=List+of+election+controversies&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search -- 222.64.21.146 ( talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Electronic voting by country has been added based on the following
Unfortunately I do not know anything about the topic to write a proper piece on it, but I have heard in the news many times that the E-Voting systems purchased for Irish elections around 2001 were used once, then found to be sub-standard (easily hackable etc.) and have been put in storage for years costing the taxpayer millions per year. Today I seen a piece on the news that the government has decided to try and sell the machines. Could someone put this into encyclopedic prose that knows what theyre talking about? thanks Dylan ( talk) 16:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Its silly to lump all e-voting together like article does at this moment. Those voting machines in polling stations in US are totally different from voting over internet in Estonia. Basically article should be divided in 2, one part for voting machines and other part for all kinds of remote voting.-- Staberinde ( talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I think all or almost all of the instances in Electronic_voting#Documented_problems are inappropriate content for an encyclopedia: it is not anywhere near a complete list, and there is no apparent basis on which the material was chosen (e.g. political impact, major lawsuit, new type of technical problem) One of the instances apparently involves 3 voters! The only ones I think significant are : Premier Election Solution in California (tho it seems to have a separate section of its own which should be integrated), India 2009, Netherlands 2006, possible Sarasota 2006in view of earlier year problems in that state, Finland 2009, DC 2010, NSW 2015. The policies involved are NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, per /info/en/?search=Help:Maintenance_template_removal#When_to_remove .
The article has enough mentions of Electronic Voting technologies being used in non-US countries, e.g. Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Ireland,Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Romania, Switzerland, Venezuela and the Philippines.
Interestingly enough, the "worldwide view" depicted in the article is generally a more advanced view of voting technology than what is customarily seen in the United States. That is to say, the U.S. still shows (2016) a technological state of affairs that is considerably lagging behind the corresponding panorama in several other countries. -- AVM ( talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/defeat.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The South Africa and Nigeria sections that were added two weeks ago by Revision 865763809 are mostly BS.
They for sure are not neutral, have false and deceptive assertions, and a lot of unintelligible or irrelevant content.
Example:
E-voting is a new technology has been implemented by developed countries; most of the research has embraced this technology within this context. Therefore, there is a necessity to explore the implementation and adoption of this technology in developing countries such as South Africa
It would probably be best to undo the revision altogether, but if someone has a will to fact-check it some parts might be salvaged.
Gcrvo ( talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Many countries have summary sections in this article. Even more countries are summarized in Electronic voting by country. Many countries also have individual articles, like Electronic voting in Brazil. So new information has to be added to the individual country articles, then summarized in Electronic voting by country, then evaluated whether to summarize here too. Or people add info here without putting it in the other articles. It's hard to keep three places consistent.
I suggest moving the individual country sections from here to Electronic voting by country, so only two places for each country will need to be maintained. That will leave this article as a general discussion of issues which affect the various countries, and it will be easier to maintain and more manageable in size. Numbersinstitute ( talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You can become rich by the following: You must be eligible to listen You must be focused \\ \\ \\ smart
If you can follow this,you will be a rich person.@[[User:Www.itech 102.89.47.232 ( talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)