1 / 11

Electronic Voting Systems

Electronic Voting Systems. Telicia Chaffin Mesa State College. Overview. History of Voting Current Failures Characteristics of a Good E-voting System Comparison of Models Standards Conclusion. 1700’s. 1800’s. 1856. 1888. 1920. 1950. 1980. 2000. 2006.

Jims
Download Presentation

Electronic Voting Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Electronic Voting Systems Telicia Chaffin Mesa State College

  2. Overview • History of Voting • Current Failures • Characteristics of a Good E-voting System • Comparison of Models • Standards • Conclusion

  3. 1700’s 1800’s 1856 1888 1920 1950 1980 2000 2006 U.S. adopts Australian White Paper Ballots Punch Card Machines Optical Scan Machines Early Paper Ballots Mechanical Lever Action Voting Machines Electronic Voting Machines Australia – White Paper Ballots Touch Screens (in some states) Raising of hands “Aye” or “Nay” Timeline (Bellis, 2007; Saltman, 2006)

  4. Current Failures • 2000 – hanging chads and butterfly ballots (Mercuri, 2002) • 2002 – faulty memory card (Anderson, 2006) • 2003 – machines miscount ballots (Anderson, 2006) • 2004 – improperly calibrated scanner (Mercuri, 2002) • 2006 – polls do not open on time (“E-voting”, 2006)

  5. E-voting System • Accuracy • Verifiability • Democracy • Privacy • Convenience • Flexibility • Mobility (eWeek, 2005) (Cranor & Cytron, 1996)

  6. Proposed Characteristics • Reliability • Consistency • Social Acceptance (Hines & Rash, 2006) (Matson, 2004)

  7. Model Comparison

  8. Standards • Physical Machines (quality control) • E-voting Process • IEEE Project 1583 (PC World, 2004) (Matson, 2004)

  9. Conclusion • Risks • Impact • Online E-voting (eWeek, 2006) (Julian, 2006)

  10. Questions? Comments? Thank You for Your Time!

  11. References • Anderson C. (2006). How to Rig a Democracy: A Timeline of Electronic Voting in the United States. The Indypendent. Retrieved November 28, 2006 from: http://www.indypendent.org/?p=108 • Bellis, M. (2007). The History of Voting Machines. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from: http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa111300b.htm • Cranor, L.F., & Cytron, R.K. (1996). Design and Implementation of a Security-Conscious Electronic Polling System. Washington University Computer Science Technical Report (WUCS). Retrieved October 9, 2006 from: http://www.acm.org/crossroads/ords2-4/voting.html • E-voting Posts from Deep Links. (2006). Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from: http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/ • Hines, M. & Rash, W. (2006). No Vote of Confidence for E-voting eWeek, • Mercuri, R. (2002). A Better Ballot Box? IEEE Spectrum, 3, 10, 46-50. • Saltman, R. (2006). Independent Verification: Essential Action to Assure Integrity in the Voting Process. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Report SB134106W070. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from: http://www.votingmachinesprocon.org/timeline.htm

More Related