Re: My proposal for Minimal E-Voting Standards

From: Teresa Hommel <tahommel_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 14:50:54 CDT

In the future, if the disability lobby works with technologists,
equipment can be developed. At the present time, I believe it is
unreasonable to expect it by the HAVA imposed deadlines.

It also may be worth it for the disability lobby to consider where to
put the limited resources it has or may get. One estimate in NY state is
that it will cost $3000 per voter with disabilities to provide a private
and independent vote. If I was in a position to allocate $3000 for
accessibility, I don't know if I would put it into voting equipment
which would be used maybe once a year, or into other accessibility
solutions that might be used every day. Taxis, a broader range of public
accomodations, housing, home services, jobs.

Teresa

Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:

>Hello Teresa:
>
>Agreed. ADA talks about, 'Reasonable' accomodations
>as well. At the risk of starting yet another flame,
>is it 'reasonable' to insist that if a quadraplegic
>can independently get into a voting place using their
>sip and puff interface and an electric wheel chair,
>that they also should be able to physically put the
>ballot into the reader as with the Automark? My
>personal feeling is no, but I'm open to discussion on
>the issue.
>
>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
>--- Teresa Hommel <tahommel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>ADA compliance and multiple language capability can
>>be achieved by
>>computerized ballot-marking or ballot-printing
>>devices to assist voters
>>to mark a paper ballot. It may not be feasible to
>>handle all
>>disabilities with the same device.
>>
>>Teresa Hommel
>>
>>Ed Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hello:
>>>
>>>A couple of things:
>>>
>>>1. Q: Why use touch screen voting? A. ADA
>>>
>>>
>>compliance and multiple
>>
>>
>>>language capability. Also, it makes write in
>>>
>>>
>>voting a little less
>>
>>
>>>uncertain.
>>>2. You seem to neglect voting registration and
>>>
>>>
>>poll books. Not only
>>
>>
>>>do votes needs to be accurately recorded and
>>>
>>>
>>capable of independent
>>
>>
>>>audit but only legitimate voters should vote.
>>>
>>>
>>After looking over the
>>
>>
>>>Washington State elections it looks like the
>>>
>>>
>>Republican party has some
>>
>>
>>>legitimate gripes about the difficulty of voter
>>>
>>>
>>verification. My
>>
>>
>>>personal solution is free, biometric ID's
>>>
>>>
>>complying with national
>>
>>
>>>standards. If this is a National- ID system, so
>>>
>>>
>>be it. We've already
>>
>>
>>>all got social security numbers and privacy is a
>>>
>>>
>>quaint 19th century
>>
>>
>>>concept.
>>>3. The person in charge of elections should be a
>>>
>>>
>>civil servant
>>
>>
>>>appointed by the judicial branch and confirmed by
>>>
>>>
>>the legislature.
>>
>>
>>>4. In light of what happened in Ohio, there needs
>>>
>>>
>>to be an adequate
>>
>>
>>>supply of voting machines and back up paper
>>>
>>>
>>ballots.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>OVC discuss mailing lists
>>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>>
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:13 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT