Re: Not your ordinary barcode

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 19:20:52 CDT

Hello Arthur:

    Perhaps you could provide an example to us newbies of how to access and
search your archives?

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Keller" <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] Not your ordinary barcode

> At 3:09 PM -0400 4/18/04, Teresa Hommel wrote:
> > > Some very smart people including Doug Jones have suggested that the
> >> also be human readable. I think it's a very bad idea. Most people
> >> have difficulty figuring out how to read the barcode and correlate
that with
> >> selections made. This involves extra steps and confusion for the
> >> It's unnecessary.
> >
> >Beware of forcing voters into dependency on "trust-me" technology (can't
> >the barcode? Trust us, it says the same thing as this small print
> >where you can
> >directly read your ballot choices) As a voter I would prefer that
> >everything on
> >my ballot be somehow readable to me, even if most other voters will
> >not attempt
> >to read the barcode.
> You *can* read the barcode, just not unassisted. You have to put on
> those 3-D glasses, I mean, you have to scan the bar code at a
> verification station to hear or read your ballot. Such a station is
> a separate computer not connected to the original computer.
> However, it is important to note that privacy of the ballot is also
> important. While you are walking around the polling place with the
> ballot in the privacy folder, the bar code sticks out. If you can
> interpret the bar code, so can bystanders and so can the poll workers
> when they place your ballot in the ballot box (they have to do it to
> help avoid ballot stuffing). So there is a definite downside to the
> ability to interpret a bar code. And I think this downside outweighs
> the problems of needing to use a computerized verification station.
> >Alan Dechert wrote:
> >
> > > In the mean time, I find your argument unconvincing. It would
> >help everyone
> >> if newcomers would read what has already been said on this list
> >> the particular issue they want to discuss. This is a constant problem
> >> had for many months. We had this problem when our archive had less
> >> 1,000 messages. Now it's more than 2,000 messages. We've always said
> >> it would be much easier once we have the FAQ in place. now the FAQ is
> >> but it's 26 pages. Now I have to say that a more complete and better
> > > indexed FAQ will help newcomers.
> Improving the FAQ will be a constant and noble task. Perhaps when I
> add people to the mailing list, the new person should get a pointer
> to the FAQ.
> While there is nothing inherently wrong with new people on the list
> posing their questions to the list, we need a mechanism for anyone
> (including the general public) to ask questions and have the answers
> added to the FAQ. Assuming that the OVC gets funding through the
> HAVA contracts with the state universities, it might be a priority
> for the OVC to hire a public information staffer familiar with
> PR-related concepts and voting issues, so that we can handle the
> barrage of inquiries we can expect. Note that this is not the same
> as a PR person, who is to get our story out, but rather someone
> specifically tasked to respond to inquiries.
> Best regards,
> Arthur
> Best regards,
> Arthur
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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 23:17:11 2004

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