Talk:End-to-end auditable voting systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Accomplished Goals
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)
[edit] Update
- 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)
[edit] Brief but General Explanation
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)
[edit] Update
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)
- 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)
