Talk:Electronic voting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of Brazil's DRE Voting Booth model by other countries 

message: 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)
:This is a very technical article. Which is a good thing on some levels, I suppose, but misses some of the (not-really-covered by anybody in the media) issues inherent in the E-voting issue that bubble just below the surface. I've started a list, people can feel free to add comments or items as they wish. -- Penta 12:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronnie Dugger's excellent article 

message: #Disabilities and E-voting: News flash for the able-bodied (the vast majority of you), but the current options for the disabled voter make a secret ballot an impossible dream, particularly for the blind. Absentee ballots are hard to use, and usually require another person, which makes the whole idea of a secret ballot, something most people would riot if they didn't have, a joke. Meanwhile, voting at the polls with currently-popular systems requires a bit of a clown-car effect, with at least 4 people in the booth besides the voter. Again, the idea of a secret ballot is sort of a distant dream (and a sick joke) when that is the case. This makes E-voting a very, very hard-fought, emotional issue among the disabled, and yet it is not being covered. (anonymously added Oct 2004)
::Concur: Does someone want to take on writing this? In fact, this is why the League of Women Voters in the U.S. originally gave their unqualified support to e-voting before taking their later, more nuanced, stance. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
:That's all well and good -- so let every district have _one_ ATM-style voting machine for the exclusive use of the disabled.  It could even be voter-verifiable through the use of an OCR pen.  Minority rights are utterly moot when there's a significant risk of majority rights infringement. Tell me: why can't Diebold make its voting machines half as secure as its banking machines?  66.75.250.175 05:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is addressed to me, I agree with you entirely. I'm entirely in favor of paper ballots, with any use of computers being limited to marking them (after which the voter can examine them) and counting them (with a simply programmed vote counting machine that is entirely separate from any voting machine) and then keeping the paper ballots for a possible recount. But the article isn't about what I think. However, both the original and modified stances of the League would belong in the article if someone would do the research and get some citations. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disabilities and E-voting

message: 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:Joebeone, Joseph Lorenzo Hall: a voting systems researcher from UC Berkeley's School of Information.
** Generally, (informal) practice is that people's watchlists are their own private affair. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
** That's fine, of course. -- User:Joebeone
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)
replies: text: you can make a new entry with the "new section" tab at the top. you seem to be doing good work, keep it up! If you have any questions just drop a not onto my talk page or here and ill do what i can to answer them.  If you want to move the article to a new name, just create a section here with your proposed name and justification and if no one opposes it in a week or so you can move it. Bonewah (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is watching this article

message: 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)
thread_title: Estonian E-Voting links

message: 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)
replies: text: I second that "huh?" -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 21:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be some very incompetent voting system advocacy. A little knowledge of voting systems is a dangerous thing. rspeer 21:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added (and removed) 

message: Credit for inventing it (& so a %the blame for Florida: Fiasco 2000) goes to William Rouversol...  Trekphiler 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got my Votomatic 

message: I just removed:
:In the United States Walden O'Dell is the CEO of Diebold, a chief supplier of electronic voting machines. For years, O'Dell has donated to Republican candidates. In September of 2003, he held a $1,000-per-head GOP fundraiser. He has been a guest at President Bush's Texas ranch. He raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 Bush reelection campaign. O'Dell in the fall of 2003 wrote a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President." 
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)
thread_title:  Walden O'Dell stuff recently cut from article 

message: I just reverted the following contribution in the advantages section:
:Electronic voting may offer a printed receipt of important, and relevant information such as: whom an individual voted for, location where they voted, time of day they voted, date they voted, and a barcode. This ensures that a paper-trail is created in the event that technical difficulties hinder the voting process.
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)
replies: text: In quite a few U.S. states, there are laws against people being able to leave the polls with any sort of receipt demonstrating how they voted. This is intended as a measure against vote-buying: you don't want the vote buyer to be able to demand a receipt. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Receipt language revert 

message: 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. 
*"a section about the disadvantages of Internet voting seems to be missing"
:That section is not missing. The section previously titled "Problems with electronic voting" was split into "Opposition to Electronic Voting" and "Possible malfunctions using electronic voting"
*As for the PFAW section, it is still linked. I thought more that that seemed unnecessary. I don't think that information is disputed, but if the consensus is to put it back, I will not object.
*Joebeone, if you find any problem with the oppostion section, please rewrite. I only ask that you remember that you keep the information relevant to the section. There are number of articles written about election controversies, and this is not one of them.68.50.103.212 20:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain what you mean by "blasting a lot of good information out of existence." I added information not removed. I have no problem with starting a dialogue. It seems you are removing my information.68.50.103.212 20:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For anyone else invloved, Joebeone and I are working it out. 68.50.103.212 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, I've put that back, though I wonder why .212 didn't put it back himself after we objected. I think there has to be more to this, and I wonder what other POV is hiding in the rewrite. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ  05:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rspeer, could you elaborate? If you see anything missing that was valuable, we should add it back.  I had always thought that singling out Shamos' recommendations was NPOV. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rspeer, I'm sorry you thought I should replace the PFAW line. I thought we were going to discuss whether it was necessary here and once we came to a consensus edit the article. I still think that a reference would be better, but as I said before, I will yeild to the consensus od the group. Please feel free to search for any hidden POV. I would tell you that there isn't any, but I feel like I might just be waisting my breath. Thanks in advance for any helpful edits though68.50.103.212 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
thread_title: PFAW

message: I just removed the following from the heading, "Possible malfunctions using electronic voting":
:*Diebold machine review
:*Diebold system discussion
:*The U.S. League of Women Voters, who generally favor electronic voting, nonetheless point out that "HAVA allocates $100 million to make polling places physically accessible, but there is no national definition of 'accessible' or a deadline for implementation." 
:*Because the software used in electronic voting machines is often not available for public review, it could contain undetected mistakes or deliberate cheating.  Clint Curtis, a former employee of Yang Enterprises, stated that, in 2000, at the request of Congressman Tom Feeney, who was then the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Curtis developed a "vote fraud software prototype" () that could alter machine results.   Both Feeney and Yang have denied the charge, however, and some critics of electronic voting have expressed doubt about Curtis's charge. 
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)
thread_title:  Possible Problems 

message: 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
: Indeed. One of the solutions that has been proposed to the problems of DREs is a combination of:
:* A voter-verifiable paper ballot.
:* Paper ballots preserved to permit effective recounts.
:* A certain amount of routine auditing (comparing the paper ballots to the electronic results), partly on a random basis and partly based on allowing each candidate or party to single out (after the election) a small number of precincts to be audited.
:* If that audit shows more than a certain (very low) level of discrepancy, a wider audit (up to and including a complete recount if wider problems are then observed).
: I don't know from where this is citable, but if we can find it, it should be in the article. I've heard things like this from both Barbara Simons and from Eric Nilsson of CPSR, but I've heard them in conversation or in meetings; I'm not offhand sure what they've published (probably worth someone searching a bit). 
: A few more issues that are not, or are barely, covered in the article.:
:* Proprietary voting machines are a bit of a license to print money. Whenever any adaptations are needed, the company that manufactures the machines has a virtual monopoly on the ability to do the work in question. Because of the sunk costs in the machines and the high expense of trashing them and getting different equipment, they pretty much have a captive market.
:* It has often been suggested that many of the problems would be solved by open source approaches, in that any competent programmer could verify how the code works.
:** For what it's worth, I'm pretty skeptical on the value of this. Presumably, the code that would be examined is just source. You'd still have the problem of whether you can trust the compiler, the process by which it the code is compiled, linked, installed on the machines, etc. If you've got a paper trail based on voter-verified ballots, it's moot whether the software is open source or closed. If you don't, I don't believe you can ever have enough trust in the software to assure an honest election.
: Again, I don't have references handy for any of this this, but I believe it is out there, and I suspect that someone with some time and diligence could follow this up and improve the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of E-Voting is off 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup?

message: We have "electronic voting in ..." pages for many countries, save the one in which e-voting is causing the most controversy.  Why is this??
:Because I got tired after writing all the other ones, the US one is going to be the most extensive, and more of the rest of the article is already covering much of the US. Electiontechnology 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there no 'electronic voting in the US' page?

message: Someone just added:
:On October 30 2006 the Dutch minister of Home affairs withdrew the license of 1187 voting machines, about 10% of the total number to be used, because it was proven that one could ´listen out´ the voting from up to 40 meters by receiving radiowaves. National elections are to be held 24 days after this decision. The decision was forced by a group called wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet we do´t trust voting computers.
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)
replies: text: Just added the requested information and made minor textual edits. Still not sure about the language as i'm not a native speaker. Also note that the decertification is based on the EM radiation from a normal computer screen which is used in the DRE equipment Van Eck Phreaking. The same attack will probably apply to all DRE equipment that features standard computer monitors. The remote read-out voids the secrecy of the voting process. Miw 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch Decertification

message: 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)
replies: text: The Diebold AccuVoteTSX (with AccuView printe) does not require a barcode scanner or any other type of electronic device and is visually verifiable by the voter. Thought not particularly visible in the picture the visually verifiable paper is under clear plastic using a variation of the Mercuri method. If you take a look at the enlarged picture  the human readable printout is there, though mostly obscured by that small gray plastic door that covers the VVPAT during storage. I guess the simple answer is yes, and the picture is valid. (but a better picture is always welcome.) --Electiontechnology 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diebold AccuVote-TSx DRE  

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm with you on that one. Feel free to make the edits, there is a lot more crypto and the like on the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail page. I think the section is lacking, but expect feedback from a number of users... Good luck! --Electiontechnology
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)

text: That's an area I might be able to assist. I have access to a fairly sizable library of articles and papers. If you let me know a topic, I might be able to find something that covers it. --Electiontechnology 23:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Electiontechnology, I basically laid out the case above in #Criticism of E-Voting is off. I did this on the talk page rather than in the article, because I figured that I would not really benefit an article on a controversial topic by laying out a view without citation for whose view it is and where it has been published. - Jmabel | Talk 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper ≠ voter-verifiable 

message: :In January 2007 three e-voting activist groups published a report on 1022 seperate incidents made to a non-partisan hotline that operated the day of the November 7 midterm elections.E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections (A report prepared by VotersUnite.Org, VoteTrustUSA, Voter Action Pollworkers for Democracy January, 2007)
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:
*Incident E-1302 is listed 3 times. 
:There are a lot of other duplicates like this.
*Incident E-1336 "While driving vehicle, caller reported that she heard on the radio that machines not working at the Princeton Dr polling locaiton in Dayton. Informed local EP contact who stated that a volunteer was present at Princeton Dr and that they would address the problem"
:This is a second hand report of a news report...
*(Incident E-1565, Richland SC) "The caller reported that his friend voted earlier this morning, and told him about a problem he encountered. The caller’s friend intended to vote democrat down the line, but noticed that the republican senate candidate was listed as a democrat, and so he believes his senate vote was incorrectly recorded for the republican rather than democratic candidate. The caller did not know what type of machine his friend used. The caller votes at the same site and was worried that his vote would also be miscast.I asked the voter to tell his friend to call this number so we could hear about his experience firsthand. I advised him to vote and let us know if hie has any problem himself."
:That reminds me of this friend I had who ate Pop-rocks and soda...
*(Incident E-3782, Union NJ) "Voting machine was unplugged and running low on batteries, but was plugged in by a poll worker."
:This is another non-incident.
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)
replies: text: where did You get the "study" from, the text says "report from a hotline data" ? i think that sums up pretty good that it's not a scientific study and no conclusions are drawn from it in the article. i don't know of any study which gives a comparable good overview on voting machine problems so unless You know one i suggest we leave it in there. the other "documented problems" are mostly news-articles, that's also not scientific.--Taintain 23:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conclusions are drawn from the data in the report, that's what makes it a study by the way. These conclusions aren't supported. If it's to be included, which I had and have no problem with, it needs to explained (which I have) otherwise it would be extremely misleading and POV. -Electiontechnology 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it calls itself a report, that's where i got it from. i would rather call Your version POV. why do You have to emphasize it's unscientific, it doesn't claim to be. a lot of references on wikipedia are unscientific without a warning. and why did You delete it in the first place instead of improving the text as You've done now, would have been more productive.--Taintain 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VotersUnite Report

message: 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).(moved by Electiontechnology 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Absentee ballots

message: 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)
thread_title: EIRS

message: 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)
thread_title:  E- Voting in Venezuela 

message: 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.
#Your addition, "Critics of DRE Machines claim that there is an increased risk of electoral fraud and if the security of the DRE software is compromised, election results could be tampered with in an undetectable fashion." existed as "Critics of DRE Machines claim that there is a risk of the DRE software being compromised in an undetectable fashion." I've replaced that with your version, but it was hardly "forgotten."
#Your addition, "Other critics charge that foreign hardware could be inserted into the machine, using a man in the middle attack technique, and call for DRE machines to be physically sealed." existed as "Critics, such as the group "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" ("We do not trust voting machines"), charge that foreign hardware could be inserted into the machine, using a man in the middle attack technique, and call for DRE machines to be physically sealed." That edit will remain.
#Your edits "These claims are countered by the position that review and testing procedures can detect fraudulent code or hardware, if such things are present, and that a thorough, verifiable chain of custody would prevent the insertion of such hardware or software." Will be added to the appropriate sections.
#Your addition "Another method to detect fraudulent voting machines are parallel test elections which are conducted on the election day with randomly picked machines." Has been added to a new section "Testing and Certification."
#Your addition "(The ACM published a study showing that, to change the outcome of the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, only 2 votes in each precinct would have needed to been changed.Di Franco, A., Petro, A., Shear, E., and Vladimirov, V. 2004. Small vote manipulations can swing elections. Commun. ACM 47, 10 (Oct. 2004), 43-45. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1022594.1022621 )" was intentionally left out. The study results seemed to be an aspect of elections in general rather than electronic voting, but it has been added back in.
#Your edit "A workgroup of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) stated in a discussion draft, "Simply put, the DRE architecture’s inability to provide for independent audits of its electronic records makes it a poor choice for an environment in which detecting errors and fraud is important."Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC The report does not represent the official position of NIST, and misinterpretations of the report has led NIST to explain that "Some statements in the report have been misinterpreted. The draft report includes statements from election officials, voting system vendors, computer scientists and other experts in the field about what is potentially possible in terms of attacks on DREs. However, these statements are not report conclusions."R Questions and Answers on the Draft Report: "Requiring Software Independence in VVSG 2007: STS Recommendations for the TGDC"" existed entirely in the relevant section "Audit trails and auditing."
#The section "Demonstrated Laboratory Attacks" already existed entirely. I moved it to "Documented problems" as it's previous location under "software" I realize the attacks were more than just relating to software.
--Electiontechnology 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DRE Merge Content

message: A merge has been proposed see Talk:DRE voting machine#Merge Proposal: Electronic Voting. --Electiontechnology 17:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: 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.
:This content isn't without value but is largely theory and opinion. To be entered into the article, assertions need references and administrative policy theory better left out all together. Electiontechnology (talk) 06:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Garyrust Edits

message: *reworded "disadvantages" wording updating just for language.
*software changes threats
*Complexity does not = insecurity by default
*see last bullet about dog-based attacks
*What does "between the user and the central mechanism of the machine itself" mean?
*"Software-based components of electronic voting machines are subject to a variety of software-based attacks." You can only link to the same article section so many times. Yes, software is subject to software based attacks... and dogs are subject to dog-based attacks. Something specific would be helpful.
--Electiontechnology (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jason C.K. edits & update

message: 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)
thread_title:  CA, OH and various FL studies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arkansas: ES&S malfunction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing a section? pros and cons 

message: 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)
thread_title: ISG TopVoter

message: 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)
replies: text: Am I missing something? Aren't both of these movies already linked in the Popular Culture section? --Electiontechnology (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncounted 

message: 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.  
Why isn't vote-flipping addressed in the article? Dogru144 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote flipping

message: 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)
thread_title:  Application Service Provider 

message: List of election controversies has been added based on the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+election+controversies&ns0=1&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=Search
--222.64.21.146 (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A topic of ..... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More info on Ireland is needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article organization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050619003932/http://nationaljournal.com:80/njcover.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/njcover.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041212172330/http://www.pfaw.org:80/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14581 to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=14581
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202222414/http://www.nist.gov:80/public_affairs/factsheet/draftvotingreport.htm to http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/draftvotingreport.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218212750/http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/electronicvoting.html to http://www.elections.act.gov.au/elections/electronicvoting.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060502183439/http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/diebold_cert.pdf to http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/diebold_cert.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061106194505/http://www.iht.com/ to http://www.iht.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070810071352/http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org:80/article.php?id=1875 to http://verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=1875
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090412152404/http://yle.fi:80/uutiset/talous_ja_politiikka/2009/04/kho_kuntavaalit_uusiksi_vihdissa_karkkilassa_ja_kauniaisissa_673059.html to http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/talous_ja_politiikka/2009/04/kho_kuntavaalit_uusiksi_vihdissa_karkkilassa_ja_kauniaisissa_673059.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040908180039/http://www.aitp.org:80/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evote.htm to http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evote.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091128025506/http://vote.nist.gov:80/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf to http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325013029/http://www.minbzk.nl/contents/pages/82071/briefstemmachinses.pdf to http://www.minbzk.nl/contents/pages/82071/briefstemmachinses.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070713201451/http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/winter2001/votomatic.htm to http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/publications/par/winter2001/votomatic.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724231220/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evoteside.htm to http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/2004julaug/index.jsp?article=evoteside.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724231334/http://www.aitp.org/newsletter/ to http://www.aitp.org/newsletter
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080207185930/http://www.eac.gov/voting%20systems/docs/vvsgvolumei.pdf/attachment_download/file to http://www.eac.gov/voting%20systems/docs/vvsgvolumei.pdf/attachment_download/file
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222202222/http://www.kidsvotingoh.org/insidefiles/activities/Voting%20Systems%20Handout-3copy.pdf to http://www.kidsvotingoh.org/insidefiles/activities/Voting%20Systems%20Handout-3copy.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719064407/http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/boe/documents/flyer_workshop_I_(02-19-09).pdf to http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/boe/documents/flyer_workshop_I_(02-19-09).pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106042529/http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/03/62721 to http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2004/03/62721
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Documented problems" section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Electronic voting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719064407/http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/boe/documents/flyer_workshop_I_(02-19-09).pdf to http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/boe/documents/flyer_workshop_I_(02-19-09).pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151120222242/http://electronicsewa.com:80/ to http://electronicsewa.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed the tag, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't agree. The article could essentially be called "electronic voting in the United States". The sections "Astronauts in orbit", "documented problems" "Recommendations for improvement", "Popular culture" are essentially only talking about the US, and most of the rest of the article also mostly deals with the US. I reinstated the tag. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

text: The recent move of the timeline from the general category to just United States is a mistake in this regard.  Perhaps a US specific timeline should be created for an article on electronic voting in the US, but this article needs a timeline for the world.  Yes, the first use of e-voting was in the US, but the Netherlands used Nedap DRE voting machines for well over a decade, also Belgium.  Later, India and Brazil got into the act.  Several other South American countries belong in the timeline, along with Internet voting in Switzerland (Geneva first) and Estonia.  The objections of Wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet (We Don't Trust Voting Computers) in the Netherlands belong in the timeline just as selected anti-DRE work in the US. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be useful to have a general (international) timeline. My reason for moving the existing one is that it is explicitly only covering the US (the original section title was "timeline in the United States"), so to avoid confusion I put it in the relevant section about the country. Feel free to move it if you can expand it with more information from other countries. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article "does not represent a worldwide view of the subject"??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404111620/http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de:80/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019en.html to http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019en.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ne.anl.gov/capabilities/vat/defeat.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511035033/http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978657286 to http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978657286
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  South Africa and Nigeria BS 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move country sections from here to [[Electronic voting by country]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Wow,it worked i am a billionaire now.Guys try it. 102.89.47.232 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Interesting 102.89.47.232 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to become rich due to election.