Table of contentABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONLITERATURE REVIEWRESEARCH METHODOLOGYANALYSISDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONREFERENCES

ABSTRACTEvery election process wants a standard and secured electronic system which voters will trust.

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

INTRODUCTIONA good voting system whether electronic or

traditional ballots paper or mechanical devices, must be strong enough to handle wide variety of potentially fraudulent behavior

LITERATURE REVIEW

ELECTRONIC VOTING CLASSIFICATION Electronic voting is classified into categories:

Electronic voting and counting system and the Mercury system

Electronic voting and counting system (eVACS): This model exists where extensive independent qualification testing is used

Electronic voting and counting system (eVACS)

Mercury MethodThis 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

Mercury system

Comparison of Models

eVACSPros/BenefitsPCs & Barcode Readers – easy to use, existing and proven

technologyServer-based – securityTwo discs – reliability, built in redundancyCounting Machines – fast tabulation of votesDuplicate Machines – quality control, supports reliabilityMecuri MethodPros/BenefitsVVPB – voter verifiability, audit capability, provide for a

recount, reliability, voting process can continue on paper in the event of a power failure

Touch screens – easy to useBallot box – security.By summarinsing the two tethod: eVACS model tackles the

handlings of usability, security, reliability, accuracy, and consistency. The Mercuri Method addresses verifiability, usability, and security

RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThere are two approaches to research,

Quantitative Research and Qualitative Research.

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

Qualitative Research: it is used to generate possible leads and ideas which can be used to formulate a realistic and testable hypothesis.

ANALYSISThere are some case which shows the

defectiveness of the e-voting system.Florida 2002 - Hanging chads and butterfly

ballots cause election unrest in many area. (Mercuri, 2003)

California 2004 – A malfunctioned voter card encoder’s angers voters between two counties. (Mercuri, 2003)

Indiana - Seventy-five precincts do no open on schedule due to machines failure. (“E-voting”, 2006)

New Jersey – 104 votes were counted, but only 102 precincts exist. (“E-voting”, 2003)

DISCUSSIONWith 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.

CONCLUSIONWhile 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

Lack of these characteristics will endanger the integrity of any election result

REFERENCESAnderson 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

Bellis, M. (2007). The History of Voting Machines. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from: http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa111300b.htm

Coggins, C. (2004) Independent of Voting Systems. Communication of the ACM, 47, 10, 34-38.

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

QUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONSQUESTIONS