[E-voting] Comparison with Paper

Casey, Dermot (GE Cons Fin) Dermot.Casey at ge.com
Wed Jul 5 09:27:32 IST 2006


Stan

They appear to be comparing the actual paper system with a 
hypothethical electronic system - not the extant one 

They form the conclusions this way and then go back to talking 
about the current electronic system ignoring lots of the 
flaws in the current system

It very flawed logic 

Reading the last paragraph in this light you could say that
the commission concluded
"the facility to audit the election is only of marginal value" :-)

Dermot

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: e-voting-bounces at lists.stdlib.net 
>>[mailto:e-voting-bounces at lists.stdlib.net] On Behalf Of Stan Nangle
>>Sent: 04 July 2006 20:25
>>To: e-voting at lists.stdlib.net
>>Subject: [E-voting] Comparison with Paper
>>
>>A Chairde,
>>
>>>From section 5:
>>
>>Paper voting is "likely to deliver a more accurate expression 
>>of voter preferences"
>>
>>Inadvertent voting errors are estimated at 0.8% for paper, 
>>while inputting Postal Votes "in the wild" has an error rate 
>>of .34% (in spite of " a three-way check on each ballot 
>>before it was cast")
>>
>>"Given the transparent conditions under which Irish elections 
>>are currently conducted in open public view using the paper 
>>method, the likely occurrence of major counting errors is 
>>extremely low" ---- versus ---- "the potential for an 
>>inaccuracy in the counting of votes to go unnoticed is 
>>greater under an electronic system than under the paper system."
>>
>>"Although these weaknesses of electronic systems generally 
>>can be largely overcome by rigorous design, testing and 
>>assurance stages [...] these conditions are not met in 
>>respect of the chosen system at this time."
>>
>>"the paper ballots are retained by election officials, with 
>>the consequence that an election can be fully audited with 
>>reference to manual vote records if required. [...] Since the 
>>chosen electronic system does not have this facility [...]  
>>it is not subject to any meaningful independent audit of its 
>>vote recording function. Thus the paper system is superior in 
>>this respect."
>>
>>
>>Given the above advantages of paper, in the most critical 
>>aspects of the voting system, can somebody explain how the 
>>CEV came to conclude that paper was only marginally better 
>>than "The Chosen System"
>>
>>Is mise,
>>
>>Stan:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>E-voting mailing list
>>E-voting at lists.stdlib.net
>>http://lists.stdlib.net/mailman/listinfo/e-voting
>>http://evoting.cs.may.ie/
>>



More information about the E-voting mailing list