Re: Council yanks voting machine funding

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 17:20:52 CDT

Regarding the lack of privacy if vote order is preserved by reel-to-reel printers.

Is there really a problem here?
the order that people actually vote at a polling place is not officially recorded ( or at least the common practice is there is a sheet linting the regiustered voters for a precint in alphbetical order, and these names are checked off as each person votes, but the order they are checked off in is not recorded).

Now in principle some evildoer could stand outside and record people entering and leaving. Also a poll worker with the memory of Kreskin could memorize the order.

But as long as those persons dont have access to the roll itself this knoweldge does no good.

So it seems to me that by administrative procedure it might be possible assure the polling record was, reasonably, not reconstructible.

I note that OVC itself has an administrative step that shuffles the ballots and that until then the vote order is preserved.

In principle then the only difference is that the OVC step is irrevocable destruction of vote order. Whereas the reel-to-reel system depends on continuity of access limitation to preserve perfect anonymity.

Thus while the OVC system has an advantage in simplicity, that both systems are workably anonymous.

am I missing something.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:23 CDT