 
  See your link here
|
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Subscribe to
Computerworld 40 years of the most authoritative source of news and information for IT leaders.
Study: Electronic voting increased tabulation errors
or
Other Standards and Legal Issues Stories
|
|
|
|
July 10, 2008 (IDG News Service) -- Polling stations using electronic voting systems suffered more voting discrepancies than polling stations using traditional paper votes in four recent French elections, according to a study sponsored by two groups campaigning for free and transparent elections.
Chantal Enguehard, a researcher at the University of Nantes who specializes in electronic voting, looked at discrepancies between the number of electors who signed the electoral register to confirm that they voted and the number of votes subsequently counted for each polling station. The study compared discrepancies at 6,427 polling stations using electronic voting machines and 14,624 using paper ballots, in both rounds of the 2007 presidential election and two subsequent elections.
There were discrepancies between the number of signatures and the number of votes at around 29.8% of polling stations studied using electronic voting machines, compared with just 5.3% of those using paper ballots, and those discrepancies were larger in the stations using voting machines, Enguehard found. It's unlikely that voters' unfamiliarity with the machines is to blame, for two reasons, said Enguehard. The ratio of discrepancies between electronic and traditional stations got worse, rather than better, with time, and there was no correlation between the bureaus with discrepancies and the bureaus that received the most complaints about difficulties with the voting machines.
In French elections, voters are traditionally presented with an opaque envelope and a selection of ballot papers, each printed with the name of one of the candidates. In private, they place the ballot paper of their chosen candidate in the envelope, before identifying themselves to voting officials who verify that they are registered to vote and have not already voted in that election. Finally, they place their envelope in the transparent ballot box and sign the register of electors to say they have voted.
The opacity of the envelopes guarantees the secrecy of the vote, while the transparency of the ballot boxes guarantees that they were not stuffed with votes prior to the opening of the poll. Patient electors may observe the ballot box for the duration of the vote to satisfy themselves that the envelopes in the box are not tampered with, and that their number corresponds with the number of signatures in the register when the poll closes.
The introduction of electronic voting machines required a few changes to the rules and procedures. On arrival, voters identify themselves and their right to vote is verified. Then, they go to the polling booth where the polling station's returning officer activates the machine for each voter. The voters select the name of their chosen candidate on the screen and confirm their vote before signing the electoral register and leaving. But there is no way for the average elector to verify the honesty of the voting machine as they can with a transparent ballot box, beyond the comparison Enguehard made of the number of signatures on the register and the number of votes recorded.
Enguehard's study, funded by two campaign groups, Paris' Ethique Citoyenne in Paris, and the European Computer and Communication Security Institute in Brussels, concludes that a broader study is needed to determine whether the trends observed in this sample of polling stations hold true for the rest of the country. She also wants to look into the reasons behind the discrepancies.
Reprinted with permission from
IDG.netStory copyright 2008 International Data Group. All rights reserved.
|
Print this Story |
|
Send Us Feedback |
|
E-mail this Story |
|
Digg this Story |
|
Slashdot this Story |
See your link here
|
|
|
 |
| All Zones Application Performance Zone Business Continuity Zone The File Data Management Zone Security Management Zone The SAS Zone Business Intelligence and Analytics Zone Windows Protection Zone The Enterprise Search Zone Software as a Service Zone The Security Zone |
 |
||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ||||||||
|
Long Tail Supplier Collaboration - What's In It For You? 
Download this exclusive Computerworld Tech Briefing, free, for a limited time only! Compliments of PacketMotion. 
Download this white paper today!
Read up on the latest ideas and technologies from companies that sell hardware, software and services. 
- Feds considering changes to H-1B application process in wake of report
- The Grill: Privacy is a thing of the past, says private investigator
- Exploit code loose for six-month-old Windows bug
- More top stories
Go Green with Webroot® Perimeter Security SaaS! Webroot Perimeter Security SaaS is a powerful alternative to obsolete on-premise hardware based security solutions. SaaS allows businesses to obtain flexible protection through an expert security provider, solving the problems caused by software, hardware and appliance solutions. Benefits include easier manageability, better protection and guaranteed performance –all at a lower cost. Register for your free copy of the "Why Security SaaS Makes Sense" whitepaper and Go Green with Webroot! Download this white paper now!
|
Novell® Open Enterprise Server 2 vs. Windows* Server  Are you a NetWare customer considering an upgrade? This white paper provides you the results of research conducted by Novell Consulting, pulling from actual customer experience, identifies the key factors involved in upgrading to Novell Open Enterprise Server 2 on Linux versus migrating to a Windows Server environment. Download this white paper now!
|