New e voting

2,755 views

Published on

h

Published in: News & Politics, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,755
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
139
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

New e voting

  1. 1. Table of content<br />ABSTRACT<br />INTRODUCTION<br />LITERATURE REVIEW<br />RESEARCH METHODOLOGY<br />ANALYSIS<br />DISCUSSION<br />CONCLUSION<br />REFERENCES<br />
  2. 2. ABSTRACT<br />Every election process wants a standard and secured electronic system which voters will trust.<br /> Many systems has been developed to tackle the problems of privacy, security quality control and validation. However known of this system meet up the standard needed for a good system<br />
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION<br />A good voting system whether electronic or traditional ballots paper or mechanical devices, must be strong enough to handle wide variety of potentially fraudulent behavior<br />
  4. 4. LITERATURE REVIEW<br />
  5. 5. ELECTRONIC VOTING CLASSIFICATION <br />Electronic voting is classified into categories: Electronic voting and counting system and the Mercury system<br />Electronic voting and counting system (eVACS): This model exists where extensive independent qualification testing is used<br />
  6. 6. Electronic voting and counting system (eVACS)<br />
  7. 7. Mercury Method<br />This model uses voter verified paper ballot (VVPB) extensively for actual counting of votes, but does implement machines for the process of casting votes. It also allows voters to check the accuracy of their votes<br />
  8. 8. Mercury system<br />
  9. 9. Comparison of Models<br />eVACS<br />Pros/Benefits<br />PCs & Barcode Readers – easy to use, existing and proven technology<br />Server-based – security<br />Two discs – reliability, built in redundancy<br />Counting Machines – fast tabulation of votes<br />Duplicate Machines – quality control, supports reliability<br />Mecuri Method<br />Pros/Benefits<br />VVPB – voter verifiability, audit capability, provide for a recount, reliability, voting process can continue on paper in the event of a power failure<br />Touch screens – easy to use<br />Ballot box – security.<br />By summarinsing the two tethod: eVACSmodel tackles the handlings of usability, security, reliability, accuracy, and consistency. The Mercuri Method addresses verifiability, usability, and security<br />
  10. 10. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY<br />There are two approaches to research, Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research.<br />Quantitative Research: These experiment are sometime referred to as true science and are used by physical scientists, although social sciences, education and economics have been known to use this type of research<br />Qualitative Research: it is used to generate possible leads and ideas which can be used to formulate a realistic and testable hypothesis.<br />
  11. 11. ANALYSIS<br />There are some case which shows the defectiveness of the e-voting system.<br />Florida 2002 - Hanging chads and butterfly ballots cause election unrest in many area. (Mercuri, 2003)<br />California 2004 – A malfunctioned voter card encoder’s angers voters between two counties. (Mercuri, 2003)<br />Indiana - Seventy-five precincts do no open on schedule due to machines failure. (“E-voting”, 2006) <br />New Jersey – 104 votes were counted, but only 102 precincts exist. (“E-voting”, 2003)<br />
  12. 12. DISCUSSION<br />With everyone having access to the Internet, will e-voting move in the direction of online voting? In truth, online voting already exists. Arizona’s Democratic Party held the first binding U.S. election which voters could cast their ballots online.<br />
  13. 13. CONCLUSION<br />While studying the various electronic voting systems, it became obvious that although each system has its own strength and weakness, there are several key characteristic a good electronic voting system requires. These are: Accuracy, Convenience, Reliability, Verifiability, Flexibility , Consistency, Accessibility, Mobility, Social Acceptance, privacy, gender discrimination , Usability<br />Lack of these characteristics will endanger the integrity of any election result<br />
  14. 14. REFERENCES<br />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=608<br />Bellis, M. (2007). The History of Voting Machines. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from: http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa111300b.htm<br />Coggins, C. (2004) Independent of Voting Systems. Communication of the ACM, 47, 10, 34-38. <br />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<br />
  15. 15. QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />QUESTIONS<br />

×