Talk:End-to-end auditable voting systems

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accomplished Goals[edit]

E2E systems do alot of things people would think are impossible, it might be nice to list them, the paper by Wagner is probably a good start to check out but I don't have the time right now. Also, there's a guy named Josh Benaloh @ Microsoft who has written more generally about how such systems are supposed to work, it might be useful to find his stuff. --Toshardin 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

  • Updated Intro definition.
  • E2E predates the NIST white paper. (VVSG 2005)
  • Updated VoteHere info
  • Included ThreeBallot info
  • Examples alphabetized
  • Added References

--Electiontechnology 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief but General Explanation[edit]

I added a short description of how E2E's work in general. This addresses the widely-held belief that E2E is prima facie impossible. (See, for example, comments posted here.) "Said to be counterintuitive" is surely a gross understatement, but I could not find a good reference for it. --AndersJohnson (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

E2E is one desirable property of a voting system. Not the only one. Privacy and software independence are two others or paramount importance. It is not sufficient that a voting system be E2E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanpopoveniuc (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your edits removing the privacy assertion. However we can agree to disagree and work the controversy into the article itself. I have added references to several sources that agree with my position and I have left a "citation needed" for you to easily add your own. Pulpspy (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize Tag[edit]

I removed the globalize tag in the "E2E Systems" section. I couldn't tell what was supposedly being under-represented, and the editor who added the tag is no longer active. I do think that there ought to be a "controversy" section or somesuch, but I haven't found any E2E haters who are willing to go on the record, so it's difficult to include that without violating Wikipedia:OR. AndersJohnson (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on End-to-end auditable voting systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ElectionGuard[edit]

I'm a little surprised to not see ElectionGuard listed here as an example. https://freeandfair.us/ is a company spun out of Galois group which has partnered with Microsoft, the state of Colorado, DARPA, and others. They ran a pilot of the system this year in Wisconsin. As another person on this talk page mentioned, Josh Benaloh's work on homomorphic encryption is central to a lot of these implementations, and ElectionGuard is another example of one. Devin Walters (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paperless[edit]

First I would mention that I vote in Brazil where we use voting machines and that I'm biased towards some electronic voting when possible.

There are some arguments about the votes having to be printed out to help auditing it, but I'm really wondering if printing would be necessary, and I even thought about the votes being printed on a P2P protocol like IPFS and having some encryption for privacy if possible, an advantage I could think is that it would allow to be verified even by those who are not local to the voting place.

I'm just wondering what systems could be used in a paperless way, would it be only the STAR-Vote system? Or are there other methods? If there is, I think the article could expand on this. — Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems&oldid=1201756269"