Re: Fwd: DRE Information sheets and tips...

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Fri Aug 27 2004 - 09:03:58 CDT

On Aug 26, 2004, at 7:54 PM, Barbara Simons wrote:

> I strongly second Charlie's suggestion that optical scan systems be
> included, especially precinct based optical scan systems. These are
> very
> good voting systems, and they are a lot cheaper than DREs.

I agree that there ought to be rap sheets on the optical scan systems
as well as on DRE's, but for a different reason:

The purpose of this exercise is to provide documentation for
and other election observers so they can have at least a top-level
understanding of what's being done with technology at the polling place.
These rap sheets are not intended as marketing tools, they are not, at
this point, intended to drive the choice of voting technology in future
purchases of voting equipment.

As a result, what is of primary importance is that there be decent
documents describing the voting machines that are out there today, the
machines that will count the votes in November. Vogue, Populex and
folks like that are low priorities because their machines, if used at
all, will be used to count only a tiny number of votes.

In contrast, the big 4 DRE systems, ES&S, Diebold, Sequoia and Hart will
be counting a big chunk of the vote, and most of the rest will be
by ES&S, Diebold and Sequoia optical mark-sense scanners, with the
plurality counted by ES&S central-count mark-sense scanners. Lever
are locally important, and some places will still be using Votomatics.

To inform pollwatchers, these are the systems we must document!

                Doug Jones
= 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 23:17:18 2004

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