Voting online in the ACS Elections

Some years ago, when I was on their governing council, the Australian Computer Society changed its rules to allow for electronic voting. But the ACS doesn't have many elections and many of those, such as for the council itself, were done during a face to face meeting. The ACS therefore sensibly decided not to rush into e-voting. This year e-voting is being used for positions on the new national congress (which replaces the council) and for branches. Recently I voted electronically for the ACT Government in Canberra and last year for the Federal election. Voting for the IEEE and ACM are already electronic, so it may be that I never vote with a piece of paper again.

I wasn't involved with the selection of the ACS voting system. This uses a company called Bigpulse.com. They have an Australian office in Sydney, but I don't know anything more than that about them. The process is much the same as for ACM and IEEE elections. I was sent a message by the ACS with a link to the independent e-voting company. This then brings up an introductory message from the ACS returning officer explaining the voting system. The next screen than displays a form which looks like a traditional voting paper. There is a link next to each candidate to display their supporting statement (some you don't get with a traditional paper ballot or the systems used for the ACT and federal elections). The statements include a photo (if the candiate supplied one) which is handy if you can't rememebr exactly who is who. The statment appers on the ballot paper under the candidate's name which is easier than the previous ACM and IEEE systems, where you are referred to a separate web page.

As with other e-voting systems, this system checks the ballot is valid (the ACT and federal systems check for valid ballots but still permit the voter to cast one which is invalid). The system also invite comments on the vote (after warning the voter not to identify themselves). I submitted a comment suggesting the system require some form of identification of the voter (such as their member number or having logged in via the member section fo the ACS web site. This would be to allow for the unlikely situation where someone other than the ACS member received the email message and can so cast the vote. The ACM and IEEE systems get around this problem by sending the member a paper ballot which includes a code to enter for e-voting. This sending a paper ballot is a nuisance and I often have difficulty entering the codes provided, so such a solution has its won problems.

Allow Pre-poll voting at next ACT Election

I have proposed to the new Greens members of Canberra local government that the ACT electoral laws be amended to remove the restrictions on pre-poll voting at the next ACT Election. This would allow most of the votes to be cast and counted electronically.

This could be done by the following change to the Electoral Act 1992:

Replace: "expects to be unable"

With: "does not wish"

In: Section 136B "Ordinary or declaration voting in ACT before polling day"
(1) (a).

This would allow more voters to use the pre-poll polling places (whioch are equipped for e-voting) in the weeks before polling day, without needing to give a reason to do so. It would have several advantages:

1. REDUCED FUEL USE: Votes could be cast on a planned shopping trip or work break, instead of needing special trip on polling day. As well as being convenient for the voters, this would reduce the number of car trips on polling day and so reduce fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.
2. REDUCED PAPER USE: Allowing more use of the electronic voting system would reduce paper consumption. It would also reduce the size needed for polling day booths, cut the cost and speed the count.
3. INCREASE RESPECT FOR LAW: I have heard a number of anecdotes about people pretending they were going to be away from Canberra so they could pre-poll vote using the electronic system. While it is unlikely anyone would be prosecuted for this breech of the law, it would be better to change the law to allow voters to do what they want to do, legally.

Otherwise I may implement "plan B" and organise "Leave Canberra Day" for the next election. ;-)

Voted electronically in Canberra

Today I voted electronically in the ACT Government local election. This is the fourth time I have voted without paper: for the November 2007 Australian Federal Election and two previous local elections.

The integration of the screen into a standard cardboard pooling booth has been greatly improved from the time I first used the system in 2001. The only way to tell from a distance the booth is electronic, is a small barcode reader and numeric keypad. The integration is perhaps a little too good and a sign to indicate these are electronic polling booths would be useful.

An electoral official used a hand held PDA to check my enrolment details and record that I had voted (previously a paper electoral roll was used). I was then handed a barcoded card to activate the polling machine.

There were problems with the barcode reading, used to start and end voting. I had to call an official over to help. Many other people were having the same problem. The barcodes looked a little blurry and may not have been correctly printed.

Another minor problem were the temporary labels stuck on the standard numeric keypad used to select candidates. These labels looked very flimsy. It should be possible for the electoral commission to secure a supply of quality low cost labels for the keys.

Apart from that the process worked well. Unfortunately the ACT's political system does not match the sophistication of the voting system, with politicians unable to make effective use of technology to communicate with voters. The candidates resorted to crude television advertisements and paper pamphlets for this election. All the major parties ignored the "No Junk Mail" sign on my letterbox and put pamphlets in (the only others to do this are companies selling scam weight loss cures). The worst offender was a candidate with pamphlets three days in a row, designed to deceive the voter by appearing to be from another political party.

Recently I responded to a request from an international Non-Government Organisation to train government officials in e-Democracy in a developing nation. Perhaps similar training is needed in Canberra.

Report on electronic voting trials

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has provided a brief report on the two trials of electronically voting at the 2007 federal election. 1511 Defence personnel in Iraq, Solomon Islands, East Timor and Afghanistan voted electronically using
the Defence Restricted Network to communicate with a specially developed AEC system. 850 people used a separate system in Australia for those who are blind
or have low vision. Reports on the trials are being written for the Parliamentary committee which recommended the trials.

I used the low vision system and found it worked well. The system was similar to that used for the ACT elections and was developed by the same company. While e-voting has been controversial in the UK and the USA, the Australian trials appear to haven been uncontroversial. Neither trial involved use of the public Internet, with the defence system being a classified military network and the low vision system printing paper ballots to be scanned.

The ACT Electoral Commissioner talked 9 April 2008 about e-voting in Canberra to the ACT Society for Technology and the Law in a presentation entitled "E-voting; casting votes or casting doubt?".

In its review of the 2004 election, the Joint Standing
Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that
electronically assisted voting be trialled at the next federal
election. The Government supported these recommendations
and the trials went ahead at the 2007 election.

Defence e-voting trial

A total of 1511 Defence personnel on deployment in Iraq,
Solomon Islands, East Timor and Afghanistan cast their vote
electronically in the 2007 federal election.
The Defence e-voting trial saw cooperation between the AEC
and Defence in all matters of implementation. While the AEC
developed the software and housed the voting database,
the Defence Restricted Network was the medium used to
transport the encrypted votes.

E-voting trial for people who are blind
or have low vision

The AEC worked closely with a reference group, which
consisted of representatives of the major service providers
and peak bodies in the disability sector as well as Human
Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes. In developing the trial,
the AEC also looked at electronic voting systems in Victoria
and the ACT.

Nationally there were 850 votes cast using this system
in 29 sites.

Evaluations of the two trials are now being conducted for
Parliament’s consideration. ...

From: The Tally Board, No. 4, Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), June 2008

ps: Thanks to Sylvano for pointing this item out.

Canberra E-voting model for Australia

The ACT Electoral Commissioner talked 9 April 2008 about e-voting in Canberra to the ACT Society for Technology and the Law in a presentation entitled "E-voting; casting votes or casting doubt?". Unlike presentations on the theory of e-voting, Phillip Green talked about a system which he used successfully for two government elections in Canberra. He described the origins of the system and how it worked in practice and how it would be used at the next ACT election. Also he discussed a similar system trialled at the last federal election and problems with other e-voting trials in Australia

What I found worrying was that a show of hands of the seminar attendees revealed I was the only one who had used the system to vote. In 2004 13.4% of the votes in Canberra where made using the electronic system, but none of the lawyers present, who advise government of such issues, had used the e-voting system. Having voted electronically in two local government and one federal election, I am comfortable with the idea, whereas to others in the room this is is a unfamiliar technology.

The ACT took a conservative and low cost approach to electronic voting, only allowing it at polling places (not Internet voting) and using a system which mimics the paper process. The software used is open source, allowing the candidates and the public to check it. The computers used are on a network confined to the polling place and the votes are not transmitted over the Internet.

Most of the computers used for the ACT elections are standard desktop PCs. The only specialist hardware is a small numeric keyboard and a bar-code reader. The PCs are cleverly installed into standard cardboard polling booths, to make something which looks familiar to the voter.

At the last ACT election some Australian made rugged tablet computers were trialled. However, Mr. Green commented that these computers had become so popular with the mining industry that the electronic commission could not afford to buy them. But some of the low cost low Linux computers, such as the desktop and screen mounted versions of the ASUS Eee PC may overcome this problem.

One further step which the ACT house of assembly has not taken, which could make the system more convenient, speed the vote and lower the cost, would be to open up pre-poll voting. Five pre-pool voting centers will open in Canberra three weeks before the next election. These will all be equipped with for electronic voting. These polling places could be used to collect most of the votes electronically over three weeks. This would lower the cost of running the election and speed the counting of votes. It would also would provide voters convenience of voting on one of their regular trip to the shops, instead of having to make a special trip on polling day. To allow this to happen only a few words have to be changed in the ACT electoral act.

However, the major parties in the ACT House of Assembly (the ALP and Liberal Parties) have decided to use the law to stop most voters using electronic voting. Pre-polling voting is banned for all that a few who can say they will not be near a polling place on election day. As a result for most of the three week voting period the electronic voting machines will idle, with voters barred from using them. The political parties are blocking voters from using e-voting to increase the effectiveness of political advertising by major parties and for the convenience of the party officials. If voting was spread over three weeks the effectiveness of advertising would be diluted and party officials would have to do more coordination of a complex campaign. As a result the cost of running the election is increased and hundreds of thousands of voters inconvenienced.

Perhaps the voters of Canberra need to take matters into their own hands and organize "Leave Canberra Day" on polling day. One of the permitted reasons for a pre-poll vote is if you are to be outside the ACT on election day. So if the population of the ACT planed to leave Canberra on polling day they have a lawful reason to use the electronic voting system in a pre-poll vote. Of course if the population of Canberra decide to have a long weekend and leave the ACT, it would remove millions of dollars from the local economy. That threat (and the loss of political donations from business which would result) might be enough to have the ACT House of Assembly change the law in the new few months.

However, I believe that the most exciting development yet to happen with computers and government is not to do with voting, but in using the systems in the actual process of decision making by government after the election. At present most decisions are made by an expensive and slow process of face to face meetings. Most of these meetings could be replaced with computer based communications, making for better decisions, as well as ones which are more efficient, more democratic and with less potential for corruption. I put a suggestion for this in a submission to the Australia 2020 Summit.

E-voting in the Australian Capital Territory

The ACT Electoral Commissioner will be talking on 9 April 2008 about the e-voting system used in Canberra:

ACT Society for Technology and the Law presentation

E-voting; casting votes or casting doubt?

Technology is supposed to make our lives easier - particularly in the case of computers, which perform procedural and repetitive tasks faster and more accurately than any person could hope to achieve. Except, it seems, when it comes to counting votes.

While electronic voting has been used in a number of countries for years without incident, in other jurisdictions (particularly the United States) it has generated all sorts of controversy. From allegations of corporate bias and even fraud, to fiascos over hanging chads and disenfranchised voters, to fears of 'hackers' usurping the very foundation of democracy, poorly-designed e-voting systems can create more problems than they solve. Is it possible to create a system that just works?

The ACT Electoral Commissioner, Phillip Green, thinks it is possible. In fact, he's got just such a system and it has been working quietly and effectively for the past four years. Join us as he presents an overview of the challenges (and solutions) that confronted the ACT when it took its first steps into the e-voting world, and how the resulting eVACS open-source system is at the forefront of best-practice e-voting solutions.

Date: Wednesday 9 April 2008
Time: 12:30 - 1:30 pm

Venue:

Murray-Darling Conference Room
Australian Government Solicitor
50 Blackall Street
Barton ACT

RSVP: by Friday 4 April to <mailto:actstl@gmail.com>actstl@gmail.com
Sandwich lunch provided.

For inquiries, please contact <mailto:actstl@gmail.com>actstl@gmail.com

Voted Electronically in the Australian Federal Election

On Saturday I casted an electronic vote in the Australian Federal election. This was using the Australian Electoral Commission's system for people who are blind or have low vision. There is a separate system for overseas defense personnel to vote electronically. The system worked and I suggest should be an option for pre-polling at future elections for all voters.

Previously I had voted electronically in the last two ACT (Canberra) local government elections. As I was going to be spending election day at at a meeting interstate, I decided to cast an early vote. The pre polling place was equipped with the trial electronic system and, as I do have less than perfect eyesight, I decided to try it.

I had to wait a minute until the polling official trained in use of the system was ready. I was escorted into a separate room equipped with a computer. Those from countries with less robust democracies may be worried about being taken into a back room to vote and I would have been more comfortable in a partitioned par of the mail room. But this allowed the official to give me an individual and thorough briefing on the process:

The trial being undertaken allows electors to record their votes using an electronically assisted method.

Electors who have some vision may be able to use the 21inch flat screen monitor. The display is either yellow on black or black on white, with an option for larger font.

Electors who cannot use the monitor will be guided through the process by voice instructions using headphones. The voter will navigate the system using a telephone-style keypad, which has large black numbers on a white background. The operation of each key is explained by the voice, but is also available in the voting centre in large print and in Braille.

Voters will be invited to become familiar with the machine by using a practice voting session, and a polling official will assist in this practice. When the voter is ready to vote, the polling official will enable the machine to present the correct ballots to the voter, and will then leave the voter to vote in private.

Once the voter has made their selections, the voter’s preferences will be printed on a small laser printer next to the electronic voting machine. The preferences are contained within a two-dimensional barcode to preserve the secrecy of the vote in the polling place. These barcodes will be decoded later so the votes can be counted along with all other votes. At no time will the voter’s preferences be able to be associated with that voter.

When the voter is finished voting, a polling official will assist the voter to place the votes in the declaration vote envelope, and the declaration vote envelope in the ballot box.

From: Electronic Voting Trials for Electors who are Blind or have Low Vision, AEC 2007

The process worked as described. I used the LCD screen with large yellow on black text. While this is favored for low vision use, I found the brightness and contrast too high, but better than the white on black screen. The system needs to be provided with a lower contrast color combination option.

During the process I noticed a voice in the background, which turned out to be instructions from the headphones on the desk. These are normally removed for people using the screen, but the voice was a reassurance.

The numeric keypad is set in a large flat sloping surface, making it easy to locate. The key has the standard dimple on the 5 key, for easy location. It would have been useful if the keys were marked or shaped as to their function, with an arrow pattern and a larger "enter" key. This might be done by using the numeric keypad of a standard keyboard, with the other keys covered, or an addon keypad.

I did not use the practice session and found the system easy enough to use without the polling official. The system displays the lower house voting first and the Senate. There is a brief descriptive text than the list of candidates underneath. The voter navigates up and down to their first preference and selects it. They then select the other candidates until all are done. even with the longer list on the Senate paper, this proved reasonably easy.

One problem is that bold text is used to highlight a selection. It was not easy to see which was the selected option in menus. It would be better if a bullet marker, or arrow appeared next to the selection.

The barcode printout of the vote is reassuring in that you can feel something has been recorded. But folding the paper to fit in the small pre-poll "dl" size envelopes must lower the reliability of reading the barcodes and considerably slow the process. The AEC should produce some envelopes to hold full size pages, or perhaps use paper small enough to fit in the existing envelopes (assuming full electronic voting is not used).

The system used was much the same as used in the ACT elections, as both were produced by the same company for a similar electoral process.

Internet Voting

It should be noted that the system I used to vote is not Internet voting. The computer used is not connected to the Internet, it is under the supervision of polling officials in a polling place and the votes are printed on paper. The system used in the ACT elections is more electronic, in that the votes are recorded and counted electronically. But even with this system the votes are not sent over the Internet.

The system being trialled for ADF and civilian staff to vote electronically is more like an Internet voting system. This system uses a web based interface, but is on the secure Defence computer network, not the public Internet :

Remote electronic voting has the potential to provide a more effective voting service than traditional means by reducing the logistical overhead of managing paper-based ballots in remote overseas operational locations.

The secure Defence information technology system is being used as the carrier for the electronic voting data transmission. The system is fully encrypted and meets national security and privacy standards.

The data will be transmitted straight to the AEC through a secure gateway. No one in Defence is able to view the data or the votes that have been cast.

Should there be any technical difficulties with the electronic voting trial, Defence personnel can still cast their votes as paper-based postal votes, which will also be sent to all registered electronic voting trial participants.

From: Remote Electronic Voting for overseas Australian Defence Force personnel, AEC, 2007

Permit Pre-Poll Voting for All

It would be prohibitively expensive to use electronic voting for all electors in Australian federal elections. As with the ACT system, it would be feasible to equip the larger polling places, which are also used also for pre-polls with electronic equipment. Currently the electoral act limits pre-poll voting to a few people. The result is that these polling booths are unused for most of the time. If the Act was was changed to allow anyone to pre-poll, that could allow the collection of perhaps 50% of the votes electronically. This would lower the cost of the election and speed the result, as these votes could be counted electronically, as is done in the ACT elections.

The COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT 1918 - SECT 200A Grounds of application for pre-poll vote could be amended to remove the restrictions in Schedule 2 and be shortened to say:

(1) An elector may pre‑poll vote.

What is the U.S. Doing Right with E-Voting?

Apparently I am now an expert on e-voting technology, according to an item in a US magazine. The article is essentially saying that the problem with US electronic voting systems is not the technology, but the complex administration of elections.

"From what I have read, the U.S. systems are primitive compared [with those of] Australia," said Tom Worthington, a visiting fellow at the department of computer science at Australian National University, in Canberra, Australia, and an expert on e-voting technology, in an e-mail exchange with eWEEK. ..."

From: What the U.S. Is Doing Wrong with E-Voting, Lisa Vaas , eWeek, 30 July 2007

The article continues in "Poorly Designed in the USA." and "Is it safe to disclose source code?".

This is the first time I have seen a journalist explicitly state that the interview ws by email, usually they write as if we had spoken. This is a refreshingly honest change.

My comments were about the Australian eVACs system which I used it to vote in the last two local government elections in Canberra. Also I gave evidence to an Australian state parliament inquiry on e-voting and wrote a little about the system Victoria selected.

For a web design course at the Australian National University wrote a little about the system being developed for the next Australian federal election for use by people with disabilities and the military.

Without any direct experience of the US e-voting systems, I have relied on publications, such as "A STUDY OF VOTE VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY" by University of Maryland in January 2006. The US systems appear primitive compared to Australia. We have the advantage of a single federal electoral authority and no legacy mechanical voting machines.

Unfortunately problems in the USA have given electronic voting a bad name. The UK has also had some problems with Internet voting for local elections. But developing nations, such as India, do not seem to have these problems.

Wikipedia has a good item on e-voting.

Electronic Voting Machines being tested in Australia

It has been reported that the Australian Electoral Commission is asking for vision impaired people to test its accessible Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for the next federal election.

The government minister responsible, Gary Nairn MP, Special Minister Of State, has said the system must be ready for use by 4 August. There are to be two limited trials of electronic voting for the disabled and military personnel. The last Victorian state electionused six "E Centres" and the last two ACT elections used a locally developed system.

The Australian Electoral Commission is currently undertaking a limited trial of accessible Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for the upcoming federal election. We are currently looking for Testers in Sydney to assist us in evaluating the software providing feedback on the usability of the software.

Background

In mid 2006 the government approved the path forward for the development of EVMs to enable blind and vision impaired voters to cast a secret and independent vote. The EVMS are to be located at up to 30 sites around Australia for the next federal election. The AEC has been working with Blindness and Vision Impairment Peak bodies to guide the AEC in the development of the software and to provide input as to the locations of the EVMs. Key players in this development include:
* Vision Australia - Michael Simpson
* Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission - Graeme Innes
* Australian Federation of Disability Organisations - Maryanne Diamond
* Blind Citizens Australia - Nadia Mattiazzo

User Testing

The user testing will be carried out in Sydney on the 16th and 17th of April.

The AEC is seeking a range of blind and vision impaired electors who are interested to participate in user testing of the electronic voting technology.

The AEC will select a representative group of testers, which meet the following requirements:
* Gender balance
* Age balance
* Computer Literacy balance
* Vision ranging from low vision to complete blindness

If you are interested and available to assist us for an approximately 2 hour sit in session on either the 16th or 17th April, we would be delighted to hear from you.

Please also feel free to pass this information on to people you think might be interested, but who are not as computer literate.

Please contact the Australian Electoral Commission on 02 6271 4611 and leave a message or by email to evoting (a) aec.gov.au to register your interest.

Please note that because we will require a spread of testers who meet the different requirements listed above, we may not be able to accommodate all respondants to this request.

Location Details
* The testing will be held at ... Sydney
* Staff will be present to welcome, guide you and pay for your taxi ride to and from the hotel.
* A stipend of $60 and cab charges will be available to facilitate your attendance.
* Coffee and tea will be provided

We look forward to hearing from interested electors ...

From: "Fwd: vip-l: Electoral Commission Seeking Sydney-based people for user testing", Jan Whitake, Link mailing list, Apr 5 10:31:03 EST 2007

E-voting for Australian Elections

In August the Federal Government announced trials of electronic voting for the vision impaired and military personnel. The the legislation for this, the "Electoral and Referendum Legislation Amendment Bill 2006", has been passed by the Senate:

The Bill contains provisions that will:

• provide for a trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people;
• provide for a trial of remote electronic voting for Australian Defence Force (ADF) members and defence civilians serving outside Australia; ...

The Australian Government will provide additional funding to the AEC with a fiscal balance impact of $5.0 million over five years from 2006-07 (including $2.7 million in capital). The majority of the funding is being provided in 2006-07 ($3.8 million).

The funding will be used for the purchase of computer hardware and software related to the trial of electronically assisted voting for sight-impaired people and for the trial of remote electronic voting by ADF personnel serving overseas. Funding will also be used for the delivery of postal voting material to postal vote applicants by means other than post. ...

From: Explanatory Memorandum, Parliament of Australia, 2006

I have suggested the same electronic voting system could be used for disabled users, military personnel and the general public.

Electronic Voting in Australia for Military Personnel and the Disabled

In August the Federal Government announced trials by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) of electronic voting for the vision impaired and military personnel.

The AEC hasn't said much about their plans to implement these. The not-so-obvious approach would be to use the one electronic voting system for disabled users, military personnel and the general public. Building a voting system for the ADF would not seem to have much in common with one for the disabled. But in my work on web based systems for the Department of Defence I noted similarities. For the Beijing Olympics 2008 I suggested the use of one common web interface for kiosks, disabled users and ordinary web users.

A report on "Electronic Voting and Electronic Counting of Votes" (report 1) was prepared by staff of the Victorian and Australian Electoral Commissions in March 2001. This report suffers from being very out of date and having concentrated on US voting technology. The USA is behind much of the world, including the third world, when it comes to e-voting technology. A second, better report "eVolution not revolution - Electronic Voting" was issued September 2002 with more on UK and other European systems.

The leader in e-voting in Australia is the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) which has used it Linux based EVACS system, developed by the local company Software Improvements. I have used this system to vote in two local government elections. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Library issued a Research Note "Electronic Voting in the 2001 ACT Election" (no 46) about it in 2002.

The next most advanced in Australia is the Victorian Parliament, who had an inquiry on Electronic Democracy in 2005 and invited me to give evidence. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) submission suggested a e-voting kiosk pilot. This was only intended for the disabled and those with limited English. The Victorian Electoral and Parliamentary Committees Legislation (Amendment) Act 2006 restricts electronic voting to these voters. This seems an unnecessary with any ACT voters being able to use the electronic kiosks in the Canberra system.

The VEC is planning to conduct the pilot at six "E Centres" at November's state election. This appears to be about the same size as the ACT system. Unlike the ACT system, the Victorian system is only an electronic front end to the paper based count. After the voter casts their ballot electronically, a paper ballot is printed and processed as for the manual system. In contrast the ACT put in place the opposite of this: paper ballots are entered into an electronic back end along with the electronic ballots. This greatly speeds up vote counting and reduces problems with disputed ballots. It also makes the ACT's Hare-Clark electoral system, where casual vacancies are filled by a count back of votes, much quicker.

The Victorian system was produced by Hewlett Packard in conjunction with Spanish company Scytl, who have produced several systems for European e-voting.

Scytl and Hewlett Packard will supply poll-site electronic voting terminals (DREs) in the State of Victoria (Australia) for the November 2006 parliamentary elections. The electronic voting terminals will be based on HP PCs with Scytl Pnyx.DRE ™software to provide these terminals with the highest levels of security and with accessibility for blind and visually impaired voters.

From: Scytl wins e-voting contract in Australia, Scytl, 2006

Scytl and Hewlett Packard will provide poll-site electronic voting terminals (DREs) in the State of Victoria (Australia) for the November 2006 parliamentary elections. The electronic voting terminals are based on HP PCs with Scytl Pnyx.DRE™ software to provide these terminals with the highest levels of security and with accessibility for blind and visually impaired voters. These e-voting terminals are designed to be accessible for people with physical disabilities and have an audio system that allows blind and visually impaired voters to navigate through the ballot options and to make their selection without assistance. Furthermore, these e-voting terminals warn voters of unintentional "“over-voting"” and "“under-voting"” mistakes, allowing voters to make the appropriate corrections before casting their votes. Finally, the e-voting terminals designed by Scytl support twelve different languages to allow people with poor English skills to vote with total privacy.

From: Scytl Clients, Scytl, 2006

The Scytl system did not get a good review in "A STUDY OF VOTE VERIFICATION TECHNOLOGY" by University of Maryland in January 2006.