Removed this. Isn't really Electronic voting
I've tried to clean this up and organize it a little bit. I added a lot more accurate facts and references. I also removed some inaccuracies and commentary. Edit Summary:
- Cleanup language, expand slightly for clarity
- Add some facts and refs showing actual history
- Added HAVA info and stats
- "Georgia became the first e-voting state" is not correct and "two stunning upsets" really sounds like there's an agenda behind it. (even if I agree with it)
- "Perhaps no development is more worrisome" Really? This seems a bit skewed. More than voter suppression? Caging? Purging?
- Language/accuracy cleanup
- "Lack of spot checks" is not necessarily true. There is parallel testing that can be done. Further NIST's software library can be used for spot checks against software.
- "No public information is available on how the testing is done." That's not true.
- "Lack of means for dispute resolution" I don't see anything here that is unique to electronic voting.
- The WaPo article is really pretty inaccurate. States do have access to the software for most systems as well as NIST. See two comments above.
- "conventional" is really a misnomer
- this entire section is really just commentary.
- I don't think the Lehto paper deserves an entire section. Moved to EL.
Mawh 23:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)
Doing some cleanup, adding some more examples/countries.
- 1.5m votes does not equal 1.5m voters.
- July 8, 2008 : the Observatoire du Vote (Paris - Brussels) published a survey on electronic voting in France between 2007 and 2008  (sample : 46 cities, 21,000 logs) : the difference between the number of votes and the number of signatures is 6% for traditional ballots and 30% with electronic vote. And this proportion tends to decrease for normal ballots, not for e-vote.
- An English link would be preferable or at least someone someone with a better understanding of French could explain what this means, as right now it doesn't make much sense.
Mawh 13:41, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
"Perhaps no development is more worrisome" Really? This seems a bit skewed. More than voter suppression? Caging? Purging?
Original wording was reasonable: Suppression, Caging, Purging can be detected, fought and limited. E-voting fraud may be undetectable, and those who have been declared the losers are left with no recourse to verify results. 
- Comparisons... section was not just commentary, but makes this point.