Re: Ballot Validation

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 00:00:10 CST

At 7:45 PM -0500 12/15/04, Ken Pugh wrote:
>At 09:12 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>
>>There's another position that I think is superior to these two:
>>
>> The rule I would prefer to see says:
>>
>> In the event of a disagreement, an investigation must be initiated
>> in order to determine which copy is most likely to be correct...
>>
>> Doug Jones
>> jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>Let me pose an interesting possibility. Suppose some voters took
>away their receipts. I could imagine even myself doing it
>accidentally since it's only a "receipt" or perhaps I'd really like
>to keep a record of how I voted. So now the paper records will
>differ from the computer records.
>
>Ken

That's why the Rebecca Mercuri method is for paper under glass that
the voter cannot touch. That method is enshrined in the DRE AVVPAT
regs for California.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri Dec 31 23:17:16 2004

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