Re: Proposed Electronic Ballot Image Format for

From: Alan Dechert <adechert_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sun Aug 24 2003 - 15:40:32 CDT

David wrote:

> Arthur Keller <> wrote:
> |An advantage of a self-delimiting variable-length codes is that it
> |makes it harder to compare votes, particularly if there are many
> |votes... So choose a pseudo-random number between 1 and 201. The
> |"extra" 200 bits are placed at the beginning and/or the end of the
> |ballot, and they are pseudo-randomly chosen bits.
> I like this idea from Arthur very much. Both the variable-length self
> delimited aspect, but especially the random offset part, fully satisfy
> my concern about the potential recognizability of bar code patterns on
> ballots.
Okay, then I vote we go with it.

It seems to me that Arthur's encoding scheme is still compatible with the
table structure I suggested that goes like this:


Where STCOPRECT are the state, county, and precinct. XXXX is ballot number
(the first digit may be HEX). Y is whatever, and the CCCCCCs are the 7-bit
characters that hold the encoded data. I have two related questions I would
like to hear some answers for:

1) How many 7-bit characters will be needed to encode the 116 bit string
that results when someone completes our sample ballot?
2) Is this ballot image record format acceptable for he demo?

Alan Dechert
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Aug 31 23:17:15 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 23:17:18 CDT