Talk:DRE voting machine

message: Any discussion of DRE security is incomplete without mentioning the Princeton virus that demonstrated changing vote counts on the version of Diebold DREs used in some 2000-2002 US elections. 
Limiting compromise to source code gives the misleading impression that keeping the source code secure (and not public) will keep the DRE secure. The condition ""If the security of the DRE source code software is compromised"" could be more completely rephrased as: ""If the DRE is compromised (such as through hacks inserted in the source code, replacement of any software component, loading a computer virus, remote access via infra-red, bluetouth, wifi, modem, etc. or direct access to the hardware)"". -- Dan Oetting 70.59.60.176 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: Voting machine is really talking about DRE voting machines and not other types like lever machines or such. Since the Voting machine page is largely sub-standard, if there are any iotas of goodness, they should be merged here, no? -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Voting machine is no longer talking about DRE voting machines exclusively. 68.50.103.212 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 2006

message: *Vendor's claims of security: updated for accuracy and obvious NPOV
*The DRE voting machines typically take the form of a box or enclosure (rather like an ATM) or a laptop computer.
:This is inaccurate and has been removed. If accurate it would still be incorrectly labled under Benefits of computerized voting machines
*Indian voting machines use a two-piece system with a balloting unit presenting the voter with a button (momentary switch) for each choice connected by a cable to an electronic ballot box. 
:Incorrectly labled under Benefits of computerized voting machines moved to Types of DRE voting machines
*DRE voting systems are often favored because they can incorporate assistive technologies for handicapped people, allowing them to vote without involving another person in the process.  They can also offer immediate feedback on the validity of a particular ballot so that the voter can have an opportunity to correct problems if they are noticed.  This is particularly important, with a good user interface the problem of spoiled ballots could be greatly reduced by using computerized voting machines. If the votes are not counted however, there is little point in determining the intent of the voter.
:Rewritten for clarity and accuracy.
*Some precincts require that the entire ballot be presented to the voter simultaneously. This requirement was intended to reduce undervotes, when a voter votes in some races but misses others. DRE systems in these polling places need particularly large screens to accommodate all choices and it was discovered in the 2004 U.S. elections that this increased undervotes because the voter was required to push a small VOTE button on the screen before the votes would be counted, and many voters missed this and their vote was not counted.
:This requires a source. Also, this would not be considered an undervote. An undervote would require a partial vote. If this information is accurate, none of the voters affected would have registered as voted at all. Lastly, why would thi be listed as a Benefits?
::I could source this (people pushing a "vote" button too early or not at all) if we wanted to include it.  The prose in italics would definitely need cleaning up (but it's probably best left off the page).  
::I believe the statement that "An undervote would require a partial vote." is incorrect. Undervotes are per each race/contest. They can be easily defined as "An undervote is where a voter votes for fewer than the minimum number of allowed choices for a given race or contest on a ballot." Many political and social scientists who study undervoting and overvoting use undervoting in top-ticket races as a proxy for a particular voting technology's rate of error.  I think what you're referring to is a blank ballot being cast or the ballot not being cast at all because the voter forgot to push a "vote" button (as is characteristic to the Sequoia AVC Advantage machine and the Danaher ELECTronic 1242 machines).  I suppose there could be a benefit argued for for full-face ballot systems although pagination means that it would be very easy to scale up in terms of ballot content. 
::I'm not arguing that any of this should go back, just being precise. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this would need a source. The POV in this section is just not appropriate. ("not because they make rigging elections easier", come one). DRE's and HAVA section will be added.
Yikes. It looks like I wrote over some of your edits when I was trying to add <ref> tags.  Hopefully, I put things back where they should have been.  Sorry about that. Is it just me or does there seem to be something wrong with the MediaWiki software today? -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, I think I've got everything back between the accidental over-writes that happened... Here's a summary  of what's changed today.  One problem I seem to have been having was that Wikipedia was serving up older versions of the page as the current version.  Anyway, let's work from this if there are no issues.  I know Rspeer valued some of the external links that were removed, we might consider adding them back. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: What’s the general consensus here on what’s appropriate in the external links section?
* A three year old Wired article?
* Rebecca Mercuri’s opinion page (last updated 9/1/05)?
* Links to groups that relate?
Personally I don’t see how these things are relevant. What do you think?
Electiontechnology 09:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I moved some information to the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail page and added a "See" link to the main article. I also expanded it. I also added some more audit related information. I left he Dr. Mercuri info because it was directly related, but the crytography (Chaum, VoteHere...) were moved. I think they server a greater purpose. I really think the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail is in need of an update. There has been a lot of new information relating to that topic recently.
Electiontechnology 21:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VVPAT

message: The article gives no indication of when DRE voting machines were first developed, where and when they were first deployed, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 19:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I heard a news story yesterday to the effect that the N.I.S.T. had determined direct recording machines should be de-certified altogether, and that the voter verified paper trail (a roll of paper showing the votes) should also be eliminated in favor of a paper ballot (presumably printed by the machine and checked by the voter) due to numerous strange vote total events in recent elections. Does anyone have the official report for incorporation here? Edison 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all awaiting the TGDC Plenary Meeting, December 4-5, 2006. Check out the prerelease materials. --Electiontechnology 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NIST recommendations to eliminate DRE

message: i undid the merge of Electiontechnology into Electronic voting because:
* DRE's are a relevant subject on their own (the aticle exist since 2004, about 20 articles link to it, "DRE voting" gives 53.000 results in google, ...)
* if there is DRE-specific content in Electronic voting then move it here, not the other way around
* there are own articles for Optical scan voting systems and VVPAT (which some people call a "feature" of DREs, so why not for DRE ?
* the merge wasn't discussed
* all the content about DREs got totally lost in Electronic voting
* a lot of voting computer criticism is DRE-specific, see florida
--Taintain 10:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the merge should have been discussed, don't you think that unmerge should have been discussed, further Wikipedia policy specifically states ""you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument." The initial merge took place because the article had become largely duplicative. I do not disagree that DRE's are a relevant subject, only that it is difficult if not impossible to separate "DREs" from "electronic voting" without having to nearly identical articles (or one being a subset of the other). Largely the articles that link to DREs are because I linked them and have no problem correcting those links. I do not believe the components were lost and if you had take the time to read the article you would have seen that. --Electiontechnology 17:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i see no reason to let you change the facts without discussion and then engaging in endless discussions if it should be reverted. yes, the pages will be redundant in parts but that's not unusual and far better then one huge article.
--Taintain 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undid merge 2007

message: DRE locations frequently submit results later than optical scan locations. Please provide a citation for this statement based on evidence, rather than an uncorroborated assertion coming from the elections industry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bev Harris (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article asserts facts not in evidence

message: Hi all, as a researcher in this area, it strikes me that this page is incomplete, often incoherent and biased specifically towards a gracious view of DRE systems, which have been largely discredited.  I'm not sure I can spend the time fixing it, but I can offer some thoughts if someone is interested in working on it. --Joebeone (Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Joe, I definitely agree. This page is almost entirely duplicative of the electronic voting page. I supported a merge for this quite some time ago. Most of the information here is severely outdated and fairly slanted. The electronic voting page, while far from perfect, is a much more complete article. There really aren't enough editors on this topic to maintain this page. You can see from the history there haven't been substantial edits to this page in some time. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At a glance I agree with ElectionTechnology, this article is mostly a duplicate of electronic voting. Perhaps a merger proposal should be floated again to see if views on the matter have changed? Bonewah (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I think it's a little chicken and egg. We need the merger because no one has the time to commit to breaking apart the electronic voting article and improving this page, but no one really has the time to shepherd the merger either. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a very good page... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on DRE voting machine. 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/20080923142636/http://www.heise.de:80/english/newsticker/news/80302 to http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/80302
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 20:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on DRE voting machine. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://post-journal.com/articles.asp?articleID=6218
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404111620/http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019en.html to http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070117143032/http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/79106 to http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/79106
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "Problems with DRE voting machines" has an uncited and improperly quoted quote from Sam Browne. Moreover, I can't actually find any relevant Google search results except for this article when searching online as well.
The section should be edited or removed, I will do it myself eventually if no one jumps on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:148:1F00:4000:7888:519E:75FE:9F36 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unquoted section