This document discusses electronic voting systems and their classification. It analyzes two main models - electronic voting and counting systems (eVACS) and the Mercuri method. eVACS uses PCs, barcode readers, and counting machines for fast tabulation, while the Mercuri method uses voter-verified paper ballots and touchscreens, providing voter verifiability and audit capabilities. Both methods are evaluated based on their pros, benefits, and weaknesses. The document also covers research methodology, analysis of past e-voting issues, and conclusions on key characteristics required for a good electronic voting system.

1. Table of content ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ANALYSIS DISCUSSION CONCLUSION REFERENCES

2. ABSTRACT Every 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

3. INTRODUCTION A good voting system whether electronic or traditional ballots paper or mechanical devices, must be strong enough to handle wide variety of potentially fraudulent behavior

4. LITERATURE REVIEW

5. 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

6. Electronic voting and counting system (eVACS)

7. Mercury Method This 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

8. Mercury system

9. Comparison of Models eVACS Pros/Benefits PCs & Barcode Readers – easy to use, existing and proven technology Server-based – security Two discs – reliability, built in redundancy Counting Machines – fast tabulation of votes Duplicate Machines – quality control, supports reliability Mecuri Method Pros/Benefits VVPB – 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 use Ballot box – security. By summarinsing the two tethod: eVACSmodel tackles the handlings of usability, security, reliability, accuracy, and consistency. The Mercuri Method addresses verifiability, usability, and security

10. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY There 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.

11. ANALYSIS There 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)

12. DISCUSSION With 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.

13. CONCLUSION While 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

14. REFERENCES Anderson 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

15. QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS QUESTIONS