RE: remarks from mom

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Fri Apr 16 2004 - 16:23:51 CDT

The other angle on this that people seem to like is the idea that they could
run an election on general purpose computers that can be used (e.g. by
schools, local government) the rest of the year. It's pretty inefficient to
use a machine only one day a year, though of course there are all sorts of
potential issues with using a generic PC as a voting station (not physically
secured, anything could be on the hard drive, etc.). But several of the
articles covering OVC's demo picked up on that as a strong argument for it,
so we should keep it in mind...

- LP
-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: [voting-project] remarks from mom

Until I read this I supported renting equipment...your comments make a lot
of sense...certainly convinced me...for what that is worth
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:50:38 -0400, David Mertz <>

> On Apr 16, 2004, at 2:34 PM, Douglas W. Jones wrote:
> > If you talk to many county election officials, you'll find that they're
> > not enthusiastic with outsourcing anything having to do with the
> > conduct of elections. That's what such a rental deal is, really.
> If I were an county clerk, I'd sure be a lot less than enthusiastic
> about the idea of renting voting stations. My vendor might go out of
> business before the next election. They might fail to deliver (proper)
> equipment. I might be subject to legal challenges to an election that
> are made many times more complicated by not directly controlling
> equipment that might be subpoenaed. Costs are less predictable if the
> vendor decides to change rates. All in all, a lot of possible
> headaches for a relatively minimal cost savings.
> I know Alan has always felt the rental model is the one that will make
> sense to election officials. And he has certainly talked to a lot more
> of them than I have. Nonetheless, my impression is just as strongly in
> the other direction: an equipment sale model is more likely to make
> sense (perhaps with support contracts that include customization for
> future elections--i.e. new contests and contests). We should certainly
> make tools for producing new ballot screen layouts as part of the
> complete OVC software collection--it's been mentioned on-list a bit,
> but nothing concrete yet (which is appropriate, it wasn't needed for
> MR1).
> Of course, there's no reason why both models cannot exist
> simultaneously. Different counties can adopt different strategies for
> providing election equipment.
> ---
> Dred Scott 1857; Santa Clara 1876; Plessy 1892;
> Korematsu 1944; Eldred 2003

= 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 23:17:09 2004

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