Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- Table of Cases -- Table of Statutes -- 1 Law, Public Policy and Ideology -- 2 The Right to Vote -- 3 The Mechanism of Voting -- 4 The Nomination of a Candidate -- 5 Election Expenses -- 6 Challenging the Result of an Election -- 7 The Problem and a Possible Solution -- 8 The Immediate Future -- Bibliography -- Index.

Holds that remote voting by electronic means (RVEM) is illegal, according to GB's human rights agreements that have been brought into domestic law with the Human Rights Act of 1998. The emphasis is on remote voting in the home or other social sites rather than in workplaces. The immediate aim is to determine whether a handful of decided cases at all illuminate the central concept of secrecy & its meaning. Researchers in this area are particularly confronted by the dilemma that no cases under the European Convention on Human Rights engage with the matter of ballot secrecy. Relevant case law from several jurisdictions is considered, & of some of the convention's broad principles are outlined. 8 References. K. Coddon

ABSTRACTMost of the debate surrounding remote electronic voting has focused on technical issues such as security and feasibility. This article examines the equally important issue of whether voting outside the context of the supervised polling place meets the legal and normative standards required of democratic elections. Our conclusion is that if voting that takes place in an unsupervised context, it is virtually impossible to guarantee that it will be carried out in secret, and that lack of secrecy constitutes a serious violation of the principles of freeness and fairness that govern elections in democratic states. This argument also has implications for postal voting, which are discussed in brief.