Hey eAnt

No probs, as you are new to OLO I am ignorant of your abilities, however you are clearly capable of enlightened debate rather than bluster. I did not intend to patronise. Please accept apologies.

On topic, yes blind people need help with voting and a lot else besides. However, the expense of changing technology has to be balanced by need. As in how many blind people does it take to change technology? Sorry, bad joke. Apologies now to all vision impaired people. I have to wonder how they manage to vote now - does anyone know?, p'raps I should just google instead.

Must admit to considerable scepticism, fear and loathing after the first GW Bush 'win' back in 2000. Thought USA system was totally f^cked until Obama win.

Cheers

Mikk,

Thanks for those links.

Mikk's first linked page, that of WIRED article 'Aussies Do It Right: E-Voting', identifies the eVACS® software as being open source software. It says:

" Although a private Australian company designed the system, it was based on specifications set by independent election officials, who posted the code on the Internet for all to see and evaluate. What's more, it was accomplished from concept to product in six months. It went through a trial run in a state election in 2001.

Critics say the development process is a model for HOW ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES SHOULD BE MADE in the UNITED STATES.

Called eVACS, or Electronic Voting and Counting System, the system was created by a company called Software Improvements to run on Linux, an open-source operating system available on the Internet."

This link, given in the article as a blue text link, 'Software Improvements', reports that it was Software Improvements' eVACS® software (billed as being suitable for conducting open, transparent and verifiable electronic elections which can be run in parallel with paper systems) that was used for the 2007 trials referred to in the Sun-Herald article: http://www.softimp.com.au/evacs/News%20Items/news26Nov07.html

This is Software Improvements' election systems index page: http://www.softimp.com.au/evacs/index.html

This is a link to an AEC report on '[2007] Electronic Voting Trials for Electors who are Blind or have Low Vision': http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/e_voting/low_vision.htm

This is a link to an AEC index page to various electronic voting trials: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/e_voting/index.htm

This is a link to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) '[Electronic Voting] Status Report No.1', dated 2001: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/report.htm . It reports, inter alia, "In January 2001, [US corporation] election.com were awarded a contract to run the Australian NRMA Board of Directors' election .........", and, "Election.com would like to participate in ........... Internet voting in Australia.".

The plot is thickening already!

Corporate manouvring?

"Corporate maneuvering?"

I would say that it because business is always looking for the most economical way of doing things and this is cheap and it works. Its funny how businesses treat open source stuff. It must hurt not to be able to profit from it and be undercut by it. But they still use it. Because its free.

No worries, I got the jokes, and always appreciate a giggle.
I don't see why we can't organise a sight-impaired voting machine, one that produces a paper vote for them, one they can check easily, strewth, how long have punch-cards been around?
Tell a 'puter who you vote for, out pops the card, put it into another slot, it reads back your vote to you for verification, what's so hard about that?

Mikk,

I have no beef with open source software and/or Linux. Quite the reverse: I am a fan of it. I sense from your last post that I may not have made clear enough the nature of the corporate manouvring I speculated might be behind the seemingly intended abandonment of the open source eVACS® based trial that is the subject of the 'Blind fury: ...' Sun-Herald article.

What I sense could be a consequence of a less than full and open debate upon the abandonment of electronically assisted voting for the vision impaired is that the gate gets to be closed upon the electorally transparent Australian-developed open source based product, but the same gate gets to be re-opened a little later in a non-transparent procurement process so as to admit the proprietary US system (or systems) to the probable exclusion of the Australian product. That is why I questioned, in my opening post, the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee going direct to the Special Minister of State for a final decision. With members of the Electoral Matters Committee clearly being uncomfortable with their recommendation, it would seem to me that such a situation in relation to such a fundamental aspect of democracy would warrant a fuller Parliamentary debate before decision.

I note again, particularly, that the eVACS® system is claimed to be capable of being run in parallel with existing paper-based election systems, systems essential to the electoral legislation that requires that electoral results be determined by SCRUTINY, and that eVACS® presumed otherwise major competitor, elections.com , considers that the current paper-based voting process is too complex, costly and slow for its system to run in parallel with.

But I digress from my own topic.

This topic is not about the merits or demerits of electronic voting and/or counting. It is about whether electoral bureaucracies effectively see themselves as setting the course and rate of change with respect to electoral practice in contradiction of the historically accepted supremacy of Parliament.

There exists a history of such bureaucratic usurpation of authority in recent years.

Forrest

Is your beef, therefore, of a "Yes, Minister" persuasion. Where bureaucracy rules government? I share your concerns.

However, I don't see a problem with electronic voting systems for disabled people. Or is this simply a 'thin end of the wedge' scenario that you are proposing?

After further consideration, I do believe that voting will become electronic at some point in the future. We already conduct a great deal of highly personal business online, banking, tax returns, shopping. This is the future way. And a golden opportunity for "corporate maneuvering". Scary and I don't have an inkling of a solution - right now.