An article in last Sunday's Sydney Sun-Herald (see: http://www.smh.com.au/national/blind-fury-vote-veto-by-vision-impaired-20090404-9sgz.html ) reports criticism of a recommendation of the Commonwealth Parliament's Electoral Matters committee that a trial system of electronically-assisted voting for the vision impaired be abandoned.

The Sun-Herald article quoted Blind Citizens Australia president, David Blyth, as saying:

"Scrapping the system would be contrary to the recently signed United Nations convention on the rights of persons with a disability."

It reports David Blyth calling for "civil disobedience" if this recommendation is adopted, that disobedience to take the form of refusal to vote by the visually impaired at the next elections. It concludes by saying that a final decision on the recommendation will be made by Special Minister of State John Faulkner.

My concerns are twofold.

The first is that the introduction of electronically-assisted voting for the visually impaired constitutes the thin end of the wedge for introducing electronic voting generally. Electronic vote recording and vote counting cannot be made subject to ordinary human scrutiny. Because of this, human nature being what it is, opportunity for unlawful manipulation of electoral results is greatly magnified for the powerful and electronically adept. Electronic voting in the US is the inspiration for the infamous 'Diebold Variations'. (See: http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm ) Diebold Corporation manufacture electronic voting machines and ATMs. Australia already has electronic electoral roll managment, already a cause of deep, if not yet widely understood, concern as to its propriety and potential for electoral manipulation.

The second is as to the violation of Australian sovereignty. Australian Parliaments enact electoral legislation. Is it acceptable to have some unaccountable entity, or more correctly, non-entity, in the form of a UN 'convention' stand over the Australian Parliament and dictate as to what legislation it may pass or repeal, and especially in so determinative an area as electoral matters?

And why does the Special Minister of State get to make the final decision? Doesn't the EM Committee report to the Parliament?

Not true that electronic voting is inherently dangerous. It is the private, capitalist model employed that is dangerous and not to be trusted.

Open source electronic voting and having an auditable paper copy would make electronic voting the logical way to go for both cost savings and the increasing the possibility for more active citizen participation in our democracy.

A few links
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/11/61045
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-9999555-83.html

For once I'm on the side of tradition, a paper vote in a box is a solid datum, retrievable, verifiable, and easy to check for tampering, by any half-sensible person.
Put it into the world of electrons and programs and it's far too easy to muck with, with little hope of the ordinary Bruce being able to spot any misbehaviour.
It doesn't matter WHO supplies or runs it, just look at what China/microsoft/US agencies etc can do now, we'd be wide open to just about any half-smart hacker, let alone vested interests, no thank you!.
Gov's and industry world-wide spend millions developing safe-guards, and the young-turks out there waltz through them regularly, just on principle, BECAUSE THEY CAN!

Maximillion,
Young Turks= bad guys?
A racist based remark try Young Erks more accurate and descriptive.
your next kebab may contain a little extra ….. revenge.
Or next time you have one too many your rug will trip you up in sympathy. :)

other than that I agree there is no need for us to go electronic besides which what would Kerry do....”good evening welcome to the national vote.........the winner was....” and all those commentators and their predicting machines all unemployed.Where's the excitement in that? Strueth elections are boring enough already. Strike a blow for full employment stick with the paper.

eAnt

I don't believe that Maximillion was being deliberately racist. The term "Young Turks", while having its origins in the military of the Ottoman Empire, came to mean any collection of young 'gung-ho' youth. Not necessarily 'bad' or good' just apt to be energetic, liberal and enthusiastic.

As for the topic, while I am a bit "young Turkish" about new technology generally, I am of a mind to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" on this one. Australia is fortunate in having a small enough population that we can still use the very satisfactory pencil and paper.

Fractelle
I agree M was using an old saying my comment wasn't serious.
it was a joke as in ha ha.
I agree with him and you. I do think the poster of the question is being more than a chicken Little with the ever reliable 'thin edge of wedge argument'.
Conspiracies nearly all in reality end up being a disappointment to the eyes of the beholder.
But for visually impaired if it helps them then what the heck. If the rest us do finish up with electronic voting it will be a both an unnecessary and expensive step fraught with the worries M mentioned.
If we do it will beceuse we took our eyes off the ball by not telling our local members. Then again you can tell them often but never very much.