The case for election technology
Abstract
Information technology permeates almost every aspect of our lives. Finally, after years of resistance, election technology is slowly helping the world’s democracies increase transparency, facilitate turnout and reduce the cost of running elections whilst increasing integrity and security. The current article analyses some of the longstanding arguments against the use of technology in the election process, and the responses made by experts, including the demonstrated benefits of well-designed election technology. An entire section on security is provided, as are references to some implementations around the world and to the Election Automation Maturity Model. The article also touches briefly on the tools of Internet and mobile voting.
Internet Voting in Estonia
Several countries have conducted Internet voting trials in binding public elections over the past decade, including Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These trials have been conducted at the local and regional levels of government, targeting specific populations of voters. However, Estonia—a former Soviet republic and now a full member of the European Union—has advanced the farthest in deploying Internet voting. Since 2000, Estonia has conducted two national elections in which all voters could use Internet voting. The first election, in October 2005, was for local offices and the second election, in March 2007, was a national parliamentary election. In this article, we discuss the context for the Estonian experience in deploying Internet voting. We focus on how the Estonians have systematically addressed the legal and technical considerations required to make Internet voting a functioning voting platform, as well as the political and cultural framework that promoted this innovation. Using data from our own qualitative and quantitative studies of the Estonian experience, we consider who voted over the Internet in these elections, and the political implications of the voting platform. Finally, we consider the lessons that other countries can learn from the Estonian experience. 1 Authors listed alphabetically. Alvarez is a Professor of Political Science, Caltech. Hall is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Research Fellow with the Institute of Public and International Affairs at the University of Utah. Trechsel is a Professor of Political Science at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy.
Kinematic Modelling and Simulation of a 2R Robot Using SolidWorks and Verification by MATLAB / Simulink Regular Paper
The  simulation  of  robot  systems  is  becoming very popular, especially with  the  lowering of  the cost of computers,  and  it  can  be  used  for  layout  evaluation, feasibility studies, presentations with animation and off‐ line programming. The  trajectory  planning  of  redundant manipulators  is  a very  active  area  since  many  tasks  require  special characteristics  to  be  satisfied.  The  importance  of redundant manipulators has  increased over  the  last  two decades  because  of  the  possibility  of  avoiding singularities  as  well  as  obstacles  within  the  course  of motion.  The  angle  that  the  last  link  of  a  2  DOF manipulator makes with the x‐axis is required in order to find the solution for the inverse kinematics problem. This angle  could  be  optimized  with  respect  to  a  given specified  key  factor  (time,  velocity,  torques)  while  the end‐effector  performs  a  chosen  trajectory  (i.e., avoiding an obstacle) in the task space. Modeling  and  simulation  of  robots  could  be  achieved using  either  of  the  following  models:  the  geometrical model (positions, postures), the kinematic model and the dynamic model. To  do  so,  the  modelization  of  a  2‐R  robot  type  is implemented. Our main  tasks  are  comparing  two  robot postures with the same trajectory (path) and for the same length  of  time,  and  establishing  a  computing  code  to obtain the kinematic and dynamic parameters. SolidWorks  and MATLAB/Simulink  softwares  are  used to check the theory and the robot motion simulation. This  could  be  easily  generalized  to  a  3‐R  robot  and possibly therefore to any serial robot (Scara, Puma, etc.). The verification of the obtained results by both softwares allows  us  to  qualitatively  evaluate  and  underline  the validityof  the  chosen  model  and  obtain  the  right conclusions. The results of  the simulations are discussed and an agreement between the two softwares is certainly obtained.