Re: First draft of Stepping Stones -- Markamaticproposal. Please read and comment. Details are very negotiablebut the concept is not!

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 21:43:28 CST

Hello Laird:

Yes, Stepping Stones does sort of focus on hardware/software and not the
equally important process/proceedure issues but that is what apparently gets
most of us excited and willing to do things. Do you think you could write
up something similar about what needs to be pulled together on the process
issues, say Stepping Stones, The Process Issues? [Yes, you can call it
Stepping Stones II if you want (;-)]. More importantly to me, how can this
Stepping Stones be improved and what are the next couple of steps? Does the
board need to say, OK, lets go?

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

laird popkin wrote:
> I'll second this. I like this for a couple of reasons:
> - It retains the most important (IMO) aspect of the full OVC system,
> in that it provides voter verified paper ballots. I consider this the
> most important, because it enables meaningful audits and recounts,
> without which you can't trust a voting system.
> - It still provides touchscreen voting, which has all of the
> advantages that the civil rights community cares about (easier/lower
> cost multi-lingual voting, audio-prompting for vision impaired and
> non-literate voters, etc.), eliminates overvoting, and can reduce
> accidental undervoting.
> - It's a very focused target, so we can more easily coordinate the
> implementation effort.
> - It's very easy to explain to people, so it's easy to "sell".
> - It lets local officials continue to use whatever central tabulation
> system, etc., they're using.
> - It can run on standard PC's and printers (so it's
> cheap/easy/efficient to deploy).
> - It's open source software, which is appropriate for the public
> process of voting.
> - We can establish/promote a standard for ballot formats, so that we
> can work with multiple ballot readers/tabulation systems. This enables
> competition at that level of the system, and also allows for running
> ballots through two independent tabulation systems, which (even if
> they're proprietary) will make the results more trustworthy.
>
> Of course, even if we focus technichnical implementation on "The
> Markamatic", we have to still promote the other process issues, such
> as having multiple people witness all steps of the process, posting
> all local vote counts immediately, auditing ballots to detect
> potential fraud, etc. If there are VVPB's and a solid process, then
> youcan trust the process more, even if it's implemented as "black
> boxes".
>
> And once we have this up and working, we've also established the
> credibility that will allow us to move on to the rest of the voting
> system. All open source is the best answer...
>
> - LP
>
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 13:27:32 -0500 (EST), Kathy Dopp
> <kathy@directell.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ed Kennedy said:
>>
>>>
>>> The Markamatic Proposal
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed: Focus on developing the Markamatic with the idea of
>>> sending it our for certification on July 4, 2005. Build the rest
>>> of the system after and around that.
>>
>>
>> This sounds like an excellent idea. OVC may be able to submit bid
>> proposals in the Spring if it focused on developing a Markamatic
>> first.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 Fri Dec 31 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST