Fwd: Ballot format presentation for VA joint subcommittee on voting equipment and certification

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 16:56:48 CDT

>Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:29:38 -0400
>From: Bob Newsome <bobn@servin.us>
>To: arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>Subject: Ballot format presentation for VA joint subcommittee on
>voting equipment
> and certification
>
>I got your address from the mailing list archives. If you think it
>is appropriate please share this note with members of the list to
>get there suggestions.
>
>
>I am working with a group of people in Charlottesville concerned
>about fair elections. Several of us are members of Virgina Verified
>Voting. We plan to attend a public hearing of a Virginia joint
>legislative committee
>(http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?041+ful+HJ174ER+pdf )
>next Monday, August 22. I would like to present some information on
>the OVC system because it feeds into concerns expressed in the last
>meeting. A Maryland election official spoke against requiring hand
>audits of paper records. She held up Diebold tape section from a
>Maryland election that was approximately three feet long that
>represented choices of one voter. It was obviously impractical for
>hand counting and also a poor tool for voter verification. Tapes
>from a Winvote demo were better but still not user friendly. Senator
>Davis commented emphatically that there must be some way to just
>produce a simple printout of the votes. The OVC ballot is an answer
>to her comment.
>
>
>I would like to submit a written statement for the record and and
>present a poster sized replica of an OVC ballot along with brief
>verbal comments at the public of the committee on Monday. A draft of
>the written comment appears below.
>
>I am not sure if the idea in the written comment about the ballot ID
>sample audit is valid. From my brief experience participating in the
>"lobby days" and in the Virginia meetings it seems that cost and
>efficiency are primary concerns of local election officials. They do
>not like hand audits of paper records because it is a labor
>intensive process. Voting reform groups are pushing hand recounts of
>a random sample of precincts as an independent end to end check on
>the voting system. The use block randomized ballot IDs opens up the
>possibility of an end to end check that is both more powerful and
>more efficient than hand counting small sample of precincts. If
>there are problems with this idea please let me know I will remove
>it from the comments.
>
>
>I apologize for making this request at the last minute. It has been
>difficult for me to find time to work on this recently and I am
>taking time off from work this today to finish this note. I could
>wait until the meeting in November to present this material but I am
>not sure if the November meeting will have a period for public
>commets. Or if you could offer to send one of your experts in
>November that it would be even better.
>
>Thank you for the much needed and excellent work that you have done
>in developing your system and thanks in advance for helping us to
>spread the good news about it in Virginia.
>
>Bob Newsome
>Charlottesville Verifed Voting
>434 882 1315
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424


_______________________________________________
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 Wed Aug 31 23:17:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:44:12 CDT