Re: dumb scanners?

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Tue Dec 05 2006 - 18:54:39 CST

Okay I just read his lengthy document. In a nutshell the scanners are "Scantron test scoring scanners used in schools for over three decades". He requires all the ballots to be gathered centrally then sorted into stacks by preinct and ballot style. He does not say so but presumably the machine totals would be cleared between stacks and the new-xy totals recorded for each stack. (This would not even be legal under most states current laws but that could be changed)

The system would not work as described for the reason I gave in my previous two posts. e.g. No over vote protection, no ranked preference voting. Plus it creates new problems of chain of custody before the ballots reach the sorting room, nightmares of sorting/merging issues, discovery and undoing of mistakes, and confusion when dealing with things like mutilated ballots that won't scan (no easy way to enter XY positions). In short the propsed system needs a lot of patching to make it robustly workable in any real USA style election (it would possibly work in simple elections like those found in parliamentary countries) --- yet it's the added sophistication inherent in those patches would become the real points to criticize.

 The genius of the OVC system is not it's basic concept, it's the clever simplification of the intracies and self checks on the process. I dont' think anyone here disputes that "dumb" = "good".

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Dec 31 23:17:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 23:17:16 CST