[LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing

[David Goldstein]

OK, to address a few issues, some of which I’m not sure if they have been addressed.

1. I was wrong on one count. It is not a breach of the Australian Electoral Act to not provide something like electronic voting for people who are blind and vision impaired – the Disability Discrimination Act does not apply to government. However there have been complaints to HREOC from people who are blind and vision impaired on their inability to vote independently and privately that have got nowhere.

2. The current election in Victoria is assisted electronic voting, with a ballot paper produced, albeit not until a later stage when all the votes are counted at a central point.

3. The ACT has used full electronic voting.

4. The Australian government is either considering or will use assisted electronic voting at the next federal election, and a voting paper will be produced on the spot. The federal government either will or is considering giving defence force members the opportunity electronic voting using the intranet.

5. The Queensland government is currently looking at internet voting.

6. The proposal for assisted electronic and electronic voting have come from the blindness and vision impairment community following the usual review of the last federal election. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made 3 recommendations on the issues.

7. Braille is totally impractical. To start with, it requires someone who can read Braille to count the votes. Further, while there will be a number of people at polling booths who may use some form of electronic voting, an even smaller number would use Braille, and it would be possible, without too much trouble, to identify who these people were and then who they voted for. You may get one person to vote this way at a polling booth.

8. As for the nightclub to provide a wheelchair – wrong analogy anyway. The nightclub is to provide access. I’m advocating non-discriminatory access to voting. And using idiotic analogies like using money to feed starving Africans, you can use this analogy in many many places. We all have our priorities for where we spend money, and we’re selfish, especially those of us in the first world. Your priorities are different to mine and to the next person’s Daniel. You could always argue spending millions on privacy in the first world would be better of spent feeding people who are starving.

9. Jan, I’m speaking for myself, not for any organisation.

10. I agree security is a huge issue

David

----- Original Message ----
From: Daniel Rose <drose at nla.gov.au>
To: link at anu.edu.au
Sent: Monday, 20 November, 2006 10:13:07 AM
Subject: FW: [LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing


> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at anumail0.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of David Goldstein
> Posted At: Sunday, 19 November 2006 13:17 PM
> Posted To: Link List
> Conversation: [LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Fwd: vip-l: Electronic votiing
> 
> 
> Again Craig Sanders demonstrates he has no idea what he's 
> talking about. As it says on the HREOC website, "The 
> Disability Discrimination Act makes it against the law to 
> treat you unfairly because of your disability." By not 
> enabling a person who is blind to vote independently is a 
> clear case of discrimination. Further, "Direct disability 
> discrimination happens when a person with a disability is 
> treated less favourably than a person without the disability 
> would be treated in the same or similar circumstances. It 
> would be direct disability discrimination if you were refused 
> entry to a nightclub because you have a disability and use a 
> wheelchair but people who did not use a wheelchair were still 
> being allowed into the club."

No no, you should link to the law, not to text on a website, which
carries no legal clout whatsoever.

Quote the section (para) part of which law that you believe is being
broken.


> And then "Discrimination also happens when there is a 
> requirement or condition or practice that is the same for 
> everyone but has an unfair effect on a particular group of 
> people. This is known as indirect discrimination."

Sighted people voting does not have an unfair effect on the blind.


> So I would imagine the Australian Electoral Commission is in 
> breach of the Disability Discrimination Act. See 
> http://hreoc.gov.au/complaints_information/guides/info_sheet_dda.html

Which section of the act are you referring to?

The nightclub is not required to provide the wheelchair.  Why should the
electoral office provide the equipment?  Will groups such as yours fund
the machines required?

Will we be required to provide cars which blind people may drive
unassisted? In what way is this different? Certainly the ability to
drive independently is much more liberating than that of voting.

As for e-voting being inevitable, I don't think that word means what you
think it means.  Basically, just because we think we can do something is
not reason enough for doing so.  When we can feed a starving african for
a dollar a day, why spend many tens of millions on this?



_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com