Ref : "for what benefit"
I couldn't care less about looking progressive. This is about strengthening our democracy, learning from our mistakes, taking this opportunity to correct the ridiculous situation whereby nobody can veto or call to account a government that squanders huge quantities of borrowed money - and all to try and cover-up their own mistakes & failings and protect their cosy cartel & buddies.

I'm for people power, I trust the people en-masse far more than I trust politicians. They're a necessary evil, but we can reduce our dependence on them (and for the sake of our children and grandchildren we should).

There are lots of other proposals on this forum for democratic reform, policies like a RECALL system, proposals like DDI (Direct Democracy Ireland ... I think) suggested for a clause put back into the constitution to allow the electorate petition for a referendum, and other proposals with noble aspirations to re-balance our society & economy toward a fairer distribution of wealth & increased community & society emphasis..

All democratic reforms will be helped by having a safe & secure, low cost method of asking the voters for approval.

I reckon a safe & secure evoting system should be a cornerstone for everyone seeking democratic reform.

HardWorkingEejit:
"Charlie : You seem to be missing the point. It's a dual system.
You can count manually (so you can check the system),
but you can also count by scanning barcodes (and get the benefits)"

What benefits, please? The benefit of wasting money into a system which is, if fully publicly controlled, unnecessary then?

If you only would count a small percentage by hand to check the correctness, you will end up again with uncertainty.
We are talking about THE base of our parliamentary democracy here and not about some industrial products.

Ref : "... how do you want to guarantee that the system stores the true votes on those papers ..."
Answer : The paper stores a full human readable ballot AND a barcode (which must match & can be checked)
The voter reads the ballot after its printed and only puts it into the ballot box if he/she is happy with it.

Certainly for a short period we'll all be paranoid and demand that the system is checked and double checked every time its used to prove its working and safe, but in time peoples confidence will grow.

Then to make sure we stay safe & secure, we just run quality checks like any good factory does to ensure its products are meeting their quality standards (they check a sample of them - based on statistical methods).

So, if nobody demands a recount we sample a few hundred or so ballots anyway, at random in each constituency, and check them the hard way making sure everything is ok.

It's not only about storage, HardWorkingEejit. If we want public control the paper backup would have to be counterchecked. Then you don't need e-voting. It would only cost us more for no benefit. And how do you want to guarantee that the system stores the true votes on those papers? Means you vote A and thge machine makes a B out of it. To make e-voting as safe as the traditional voting, if it would even be possible, you need more money, more work, for what benefit then? Only that we can say, we are progressive, because we have e-voting now. Sounds insane to me.

SHELBY: 3,221 PHANTOM VOTES FOUND; SAME LOCATIONS HAD UPLOADS DAY BEFORE ELECTION

Consultants examining the Aug. 5 Shelby County election found 3,221 more votes than voters on documents provided by Shelby County elections officials pursuant to a court order.

Most voterless votes were found in large Republican precincts, a non-random distribution.

The inspection team sought and obtained documents in connection with a lawsuit filed by ten defeated candidates over irregularities in the election.

FOUR KINDS OF INFORMATION ARE NEEDED TO AUTHENTICATE AN ELECTION:
1. Who can vote (the voter list)
2. Who did vote (the list of participating voters)
3. Were votes cast the real ones (chain of custody)
4. Was the counting accurate (public verification of the count)

Shelby County admitted that they installed an invalid voter list in Election Day electronic poll books, altering #1 (WHO CAN VOTE). The list said thousands of people could not vote because they had already voted, even though they had not voted.

Shelby County withheld the list of WHO DID VOTE (#2 ) until ordered by the court to produce it. When consultants analyzed the list of who did vote, they found names missing for 3,221 votes counted in the final certified results.

Shelby County computer logs show uploaded invisible data from 16 polling places the day before the polls opened. The premature uploads were done out of public view, and no testing procedure or work order record matches documents the uploads of invisible votes into the central tally machine, raising questions on WHETHER VOTES COUNTED WERE THE REAL ONES(#3).

#4, COUNTING OF THE VOTE: Shelby County declined to provide precinct results after the election and even after they certified the results; Elections Administrator Richard Holden stated in front of a court reporter on Aug. 16 that it was not possible to produce them, a misrepresentation to the court, but the inspection team discovered copies of precinct results reports sitting on Shelby County computers. The results had been there since Aug. 6. Shelby County precinct results ("Statement of Votes Cast" or "SOVC") do not match the list of participating voters.

* * * * *
A meeting is being held tonight, Thursday Sept. 16, for all citizens and the media to hear details on the evidence. Shelby County Voter Protection meeting: 6:00 pm at Morning Star Holiness Church - 3161 Park Ave Memphis TN 38111-3043

* * * * *

Shelby County's certified "SOVC" results show 85,290 votes cast at polls (not early votes, or absentee votes, but Election Day polling place votes. But Shelby County's Participating Voter List shows only 82,069 voters who cast votes at polls.

Also, in at least five locations containing phantom votes -- votes without voters -- Shelby County had performed secret uploads from voting machines the day before the election.

PRECINCT: COR09

The heavily Republican COR09 precinct, location HOPE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH shows just 20 people who voted at the polling place, but the certified "SOVC" results counted 619 votes. This is a discrepancy of 599 votes.

More:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/81178.html

Ref : Safe eVoting
I understand everyone's concern. Me too. Its a BIG issue. The System has to be safe.

However, no point pretending it cannot be done, if it really can work is there ?

The senate is supposed to act as a check on the government, but it didn't did it ?
Whats so wrong with the people having the power (and an inexpensive mechanism) to call the government to account on big issues (be our own check on the government - perhaps then no need for the senate) ?
Nobody suggested we should be voting on everything - not me anyway.

A key issue to making a system safe is how we store the votes ...
.. How is a system that stores the votes as ink on paper in a box, any less safe than the
...existing system that stores the votes as ink on paper in a box ?

There's simply no difference - they are exactly the same mechanism - and equally safe.
So there's one huge issue and concern, probably the biggest ever raised in relation to evoting, solved very simply.
No electronic storage and a paper audit trail, verified by the voter.

I don't want to trivialise other issues and concerns, but lets not kid ourselves either and pretend this is impossible
Get real, this isn't rocket science its actually quite simple.

To feel safe about this type of eVoting system You have to look at it as 3 separate steps not just one big system.

Step 1 - Voter records their vote on paper
Step 2 - Paper votes stored in boxes
Step 3 - Paper votes checked & counted (at the count centre)

Now, lets start with Step 2 to begin with 'cos its already been mentioned.
How is a system that stores the votes ONLY ON PAPER any less safe than our existing system ?
We don't need to discuss this, its just a fact, for Step 2 - there's no difference.

Also, if we do not store the votes on the computer in the polling station we have relegated that computers role to being nothing more than an elaborate alternative to the pencil
It's just a tool to help print the vote (just like a pen or pencil is a tool to print votes with as well)
The voter must still check & be happy with the printed ballot before he/she puts it in the ballot box.

So
Step 1 - the computer is a tool to help print the ballot. DOES NOT STORE THE VOTE.
Step 2 - The ballot is stored in boxes

That just leaves the important business of counting, and we have lots & lots of ways of ensuring this is safely done and checked, even to the extent whereby it would be simple for every candidate to demand a recount using their own scanner and their own PC/laptop
It might operate something like this;
For people who feel so inclined, go ahead, count them by hand
For people who want to test out & refine a better system that we can still trust, scan the ballots with a barcode scanner and let a PC count the votes
If needs be let each candidate supply their own scanners, laptops & software as well so that they can check the count for themselves

There are obviously big concerns and big issues and things we need control, but, lets stop living with the legacy of the shambolic evoting shite we were offered before (by the same people who gave us PPARS and lots of money for Delighted & TOuched)

People can't manage to elect decent hardworking representatives every few years in an election. Now you want them to make regular choices?
We should focus on electing the best & brightest to get on with running the country. At least then we can get on with our own lives safe in the knowledge we have the greatest minds available working on national issues. Most people want to go to work, get paid & spend time with their friends and family. Voter turnout very low for elections and you can be sure it would be far lower for voting on legislation.

Also a purely technical standpoint, the only safe computer system is one that is switched off, kept in a safe, in a vault, guarded by an army. Even then safety won't be 100%. Paper might be old fashioned, but when you have a group of tallymen counting ballots as they are being counted it becomes harder to fix elections.

Meg, it is possible to produce a safe system that can be (& MUST BE) verifiable with a full paper audit trail.

For example if the system printed bar coded voting slips with your 1,2,3,... on it, these could be placed into a ballot box and counted electonically afterwards by simply scanning the barcode
(No storing on discs or in any electronic form, just on paper that the vorter can read)

As long as the system printed your choices in human readable form as well the votes could be counted by either machine or by people & checked manually, and every one verified.

Lots of other issues also arise, such as problems with printers jamming or running out of paper (could compromise secrecy if someone else had to come over and fix it with a half printed ballot already in the printer)
BUT these too can be overcome.

The system must also be an open-source design, with all the coding available & open to public scrutiny so that it can become widely accepted by the public in general and by industry experts, academics & politicians.

I do have several years experience developing software & systems so this is not just wishful thinking, I know we can produce a safe & secure system, and I'm convinced it can help us reduce our dependence on politicians

How many other issues raised on this forum could we be voting on for real if we had a safe & secure eVoting system - all of them !

How much less would we need overpaid politicians, the senate and a president ?

HWE