Brazil has been using electronic voting country-wide for more than a decade and no party complains about its security - everyone considers them much more secure than the old and easy-to-tamper-with paper ballots.
I honestly don't understand why there is such bias against electronic voting on Slashdot since, in theory, it's a "nerd community".
Yes, e-voting, after a lot of effort can be compromised. Regular paper-ballot voting can be compromised by anyone, skilled or not, with not a lot
The problem is, that you can't proof the result is correct.
They tried to use election machines in Germany for their cost-effectedness and in order to get the results faster.
The experts of the CCC (www.ccc.org) could show how easy it is to tamper with it.
The High Court used their expertise to state that while electronic voting machines are not per se forbidden, the only way they would be allowed is by making them as easy to proof as an old fashioned ballot box.
How can you prove the result is "correct" with paper ballets, you can recount the ballets, but you are still relying on people to be honest and for the original paper ballets to be the ones that are handed in.
I work for a company that produces slot machines and everything that a voting machine would have to accomplish is already being done in the slot machine field. These machines are powerhit tolerant (they can experience a loss of power without losing any important information), they maintain a very exha
You're counting on observers from the different parties watching the ballots go in to the secured boxes and verifying the seals on those boxes from end to end. No matter who wins, some observer who either prefers another outcome or has no vested interest in the outcome has the opportunity to protest if anything improper took place.
"insecure electronic voting" (Score:3, Interesting)
This is terribly biased.
Brazil has been using electronic voting country-wide for more than a decade and no party complains about its security - everyone considers them much more secure than the old and easy-to-tamper-with paper ballots.
I honestly don't understand why there is such bias against electronic voting on Slashdot since, in theory, it's a "nerd community".
Yes, e-voting, after a lot of effort can be compromised. Regular paper-ballot voting can be compromised by anyone, skilled or not, with not a lot
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is, that you can't proof the result is correct.
They tried to use election machines in Germany for their cost-effectedness and in order to get the results faster.
The experts of the CCC (www.ccc.org) could show how easy it is to tamper with it.
The High Court used their expertise to state that while electronic voting machines are not per se forbidden, the only way they would be allowed is by making them as easy to proof as an old fashioned ballot box.
E.g. providing a print out so the voter could pr
Re: (Score:0)
How can you prove the result is "correct" with paper ballets, you can recount the ballets, but you are still relying on people to be honest and for the original paper ballets to be the ones that are handed in.
I work for a company that produces slot machines and everything that a voting machine would have to accomplish is already being done in the slot machine field. These machines are powerhit tolerant (they can experience a loss of power without losing any important information), they maintain a very exha
Re:"insecure electronic voting" (Score:2)
You're counting on observers from the different parties watching the ballots go in to the secured boxes and verifying the seals on those boxes from end to end. No matter who wins, some observer who either prefers another outcome or has no vested interest in the outcome has the opportunity to protest if anything improper took place.