E-vote won't happen for next Oz election Australians won't have the chance to vote electronically any time soon, after a parliamentary committee put the idea on ice. Beloved of netizens for at least 20 years, 'net voting – as distinct from other ways in which IT&T change our electoral processes – was pitched to the committee on the basis that people “would rather be …
"However, there's no chance that with only two years remaining before the next federal election, a suitable system could be selected and rolled out . . ."
Wait, someone in government has decided that it's better to wait than rush something through half-assed and and full of problems that will take years and cost tens of millions to fix?
Is it possible they're learning?
I think that you will find that someone on the committee doesnt particularly like Teflon Tone and his bunch of luddite cronies who are currently in power and thinks that if Tone was given the chance via electronic voting would make himself 'El Presidente for life' via a rigged electronic voting system.
All hail El Presidente Abbott... say the guys standing behind you with the machine guns
An important feature of a voting system is that everyone has a chance to see and have confidence that it's secure. This means understanding what happens every step of the way. Voting on paper and using ballot boxes makes this possible though even this simple system can be rorted. Compare this with electronic voting which is many orders of magnitude more complex. No one person can possibly understand all the code in the voting software, OS, encryption libraries, drivers, computer and networking device firmware.
Want to speed up the count with computers? No problem: OCR the ballot papers. Maybe they already do. It would need to be special and very conservative OCR to deal with handwriting and send anything with even the slightest ambiguity to a human. Spot checking would be routine and you could always fall back on a full manual count because you still have the all-important piles of paper that voters actually marked.
"An important feature of a voting system is that everyone has a chance to see and have confidence that it's secure."
The fundamental problem with e-votint is that you can have either integrity, that is confidence that each person voted once and once only, or privacy, that is nobody knows who you voted for. These are incompatible requirements that can't both be comletely met.
This post has been deleted by its author
"150,000 Scots have signed a petition for a recount after suspected election fraud:"
So how do you do a recount with a paper free electronic system?
How is it easy to detect? If the vote is close how would you know if a result had been flipped from 45:55 to 55:45? Even if you think it's been rigged how would you prove it?
In Ontario Canada we have paper + scan system. You fill in your paper, stick it in a cardboard sleeve so no one can see your vote, then hand it to the scanner guy who sticks the edge of the paper into the scanner face down and it gets pulled out of the sleeve and scanned, then into a sealed bin.
You get the near instant results of an electronic system, but still have paper to recount if the results are challenged.
I can only wish other countries' legislatures or electoral bodies had the insight that Australians have. Pushing e-voting solutions sounds like a political win, as most of the population will have a warm fuzzy feeling that the politicians want to make things more transparent, but are always a security disaster. I'm very happy this decision was taken to the right side: NO e-voting.
Why have electronic voting ? Is it supposed to make things easier for the voters ? Is it supposed to increase the turnout ? (Although I understand voting is mandatory in Oz).
The recent Referendum in Scotland recorded an average 85% turnout - over 90% in some areas. This is unprecedented in our modern western world. It proves that give the people something they are interested in, and they will make an effort to be involved. If someone can't be arsed to get to a polling station - or use postal voting if infirm - then they just are not interested.
There are some good reasons for electronic voting done right (most aren't).
* Detection of vote tampering
* removal of accidental donkey voting where someone changed their mind and started crossing things out rather than getting a new paper making their intention unclear
* immediate results where the numbers are close.
* sensible sized ballot paper. Our legislation limits the size and therefore with enough candidates you have real accessibility problems with readable font size.
* random order per vote so column 1 isn't hugely advantaged by donkey vote.
* Logistics in producing, transporting, storing, counting those papers.
These are not theoretical problems. In the recent election, Western Australia's senate race was very close. Last and second last at specific points were within automatic recount thresholds at numerous points and preference flows varies the overall winner. During the recount they could not find from memory about 1000 votes from one polling station. They did simulations of both possible flows and demonstrated that the result could change which in the end cost many millions of dollars in a state wide revote.
In answer to your other question. Poll booth attendance is compulsory. What you do our don't write on your ballot paper is up to you but it will be considered informal if you don't fill it out correctly (wink wink nudge nudge). Compulsory attendance is actually a good thing (hasn't always been my view). But it achieves some useful effects.
* providing a mandate to the parliament (note parliament != government).
* much harder for anyone to use stand over tactics to keep opposing populations away.
* moderates the nuts that exist at the frays of all ends of the spectrum. I know that a number of places where politics doesn't seem to be contesting ideas but rather trying to motivate half interested parties to bother to turn up. If everyone is already there, you need to focus on how your policies affect the whole constituency or you won't get a large sway.
The real amazing part is that for once the parliament seems to have thought through the problems that such a change opens up, where good intentions have unintended bad consequences. If only they now apply their newfound wisdom to the slippery slopes of days retention and media reporting of special operations,I, for one would be much happier.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Everyone should have the right to view their ballot as it moves through the counting process..."
but in Oz the ballot papers are anonymous - nothing on them to relate back to the voter (except the handwriting of the numbers or possibly some DNA from handling the ballot form),
"logistically not possible with the paper system, with an electronic system it is possible."
...only if the core voting rules allowed the voter to vote connection to be made, which I suspect they don't.
Also, consider this: The government currently wants to store all Australian web users' metadata for two years. Under this regime, would I be able to cast a vote without my choice being saved, and related back to me after the election?
This post has been deleted by its author
Ballot stuffing in Australian elections would be very hard to achieve.
Any candidate can appoint scrutineers who have the right to inspect the ballot boxes, to ensure that they are empty before being sealed, and to inspect the seals before they are opened for counting, and who are able to observe the boxes throughout the voting process, and to watch the counting as it happens - all of this is done in one place, with ballots counted at the polling stations at the close of the polls.
It would be possible, but difficult, to introduce extra ballots by having someone put two or three papers in at once - this would entail a significant risk of being caught, for a one or two vote gain.
Having scrutinised ballots here on a number of occasions, I think it would be very difficult and extremely risky to attempt to introduce the dozens or hundreds of fraudulent ballots that would usually be needed to make a difference to the outcome.
By keeping the ballot boxes in clear sight of scrutineers from before they are sealed, until the end of the preliminary count, ballot stuffing is rendered impractical, if not impossible.
Also, each ballot paper is initialled by the person handing it to the voter, as another person marks the voters name off. When the ballot is closed all of the papers sorted and returned to the person who handed them out, and they are then counted. there are two people involved in this process. If paper numbers don't match, it is referred to the supervisor immediately
In Australia all votes are checked by representatives of the candidates. No room for mischief at that level.
In the US with the hanging chads and other issues it became painfully obvious that in Texas at least scrutineers are not allowed. Indeed the officials will go to great lengths to ensure that no third party ever gets to verify the votes.
But that is the US, not Australia.
One huge complication is the fact that in Federal elections, for the House of Reps one must mark ALL the candidates in order (if there are 10 candidates then you need to mark 1 to 10 (or an other numbering system that indicates the preference for EACH candidate - I counted 1 vote that had letters A-F , another in roman numerals, and another where they used 10, 25, 32 etc)
Our senate paper is also a right proper <expletive deleted> 2 different voting systems (1 number only for the parties above "the line", or number 1 to infinity - thats what it seems like in NSW) with 44 named parties and 120 candidates at the last election. At over a meter long, they are not called tablecloth papers for nothing !
No problem with electronic rolls or registration - they do this in NSW already, and have done so since 2012. All students are auto enrolled from a data dump from BOSTES (who run the senior exam system) to NSW EC, changing your address on your licence automatically updates the NSW EC registration, and a death notification to the Registrar General cancels registration. In 2012 there were approximately 120,000 voters on NSW rolls (ie 1-2 federal seats worth) and not on federal rolls & about 300k either not on federal rolls or the address differs from the state roll source http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/11/124000-missing-voters-in-new-south-wales.html. There is a push to have the other states adopt procedures like NSW (Victoria may have?) and have feds take their feeds from the states to fix these issues.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
