Re: Left off the ballot?

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 16:30:49 CDT

Excellent idea. This changes my view of parallel testing, which
heretofore I had thought of as primarily a stopgap measure to be
dispensed with when VVPAT becomes available. But these new
ballot misrpresentation hacks make it clear, now that you
mention it, that parallel testing must be a permanent feature of
electronic voting, and that the parallel testers must check not
just that votes are recorded as cast by the fake voters, but
that the ballots are rendered on the screen completely and
correctly.

David
 
> Neat. All of these hacks that involve mis-presentation of the
> ballot are best tested for using parallel testing, pulling
> randomly selected machines from the polling places as the
> polls
> are opened and spending the day asking real voters to help
> test
> those machines by voting test ballots on them. At the close
> of
> polls, those test machines are closed just like the others,
> but
> their vote records are kept carefully segregated -- they're
> not
> real votes, but they're part of the audit record of the
> election.
> Voters voting test ballots on these machines have no privacy,
> so
> these machines are tested without a booth, and with auditors
> observing the selections made so they can be compared with the
> vote records printed.
>
> Doug Jones
> jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:07 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT