Text of count every vote act.

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 16:55:27 CST

The Count every vote act (sens Clinton kerry) is available.

It requires disclosure of source and executable code to any "citizen"
via the EAC.
It requires a voter verifiable paper trail.
It requires 1-2% manual audits.
it requires the paper be the official record in a recount.
it seems to grandfather in all existing voting systems though the
wording is not quite clear if it grandfathers in all systems for only
part of or all of the provisions of the bill.

As I read the other provisions there is no voting system on the market,
except those granfathered in, that can meet the provsions of the bill.
Except possibly for OVC which isn't on the market yet.

Some pecuilar provisions.
No-thermal paper, archival only. I wonder where that leaves so called
"archival thermal paper". Are there thermal printers that print on
ordinary paper. If not where does that leave the sequoia system.

(side note: according to people in the NM sec States office, who is
head of NASS, the Sequia veri-vote system may be decertified by the ITA
or EAC shortly. THis is sort of a rumor but it comes from people in
that office).

No requirement that the ballot be touchable shall be made. (WhAT THE
HECK IS THAT ABOUT?) yet the next sentences says "tactile ballots"

Further non-clarity emerges in the handicap access provision. It says
that handicapped users shall have the same opportunities to verify the
ballot as normal voters. This is a really intriguing provision. It of
course parrots the preliminary finding of the Justice dept, that voter
verification does not violate HAVA or ADA as long as handicap voters
van verify their ballot. The problem is that it's not obvious how one
actually permits this. One way is the way OVC does it by having a
stand alone kiosk that can replay the bar code to the voter. But how
would Sequoia, truvote, populex or accupol do this? What about the
automark? None of these systems really have a verification system for
handicapped voters integral to their design. Of these I think the
automark and the accupol designs could be adapted to using a stand
alone reader kiosk like OVC, but at present these are not part of the
design of these systems.

This provision gives OVC a huge head start.

The bill does not seem to anticipate that bar codes will get used (they
are part of the sequoia system and are integral to the accupol system).
    Thus it does not spell out how bar codes get vetted against the text
during the audit or recount. This is a golden opportunity for OVC to
hammer this point home. It is the main advantage of the OVC system
over the Accupol system for example. And certainly use of bar codes is
going to be needed for efficient handling of flimsy paper tape systems
as well.

OVC could further improve its standing by making one of its
disavantages an heralded advantage. OVC requires that all the ballots
get hand scanned by poll workers. We all agree we like that for many
reasons but of course the down side is manual labor. However, since
the manula audit provision of the law means there is going to be a
manual audit phase this is an opportunity for OVC. OVC should assert
that the OVC process does not require a secondary manual audit since
that is part of its voting process. One could do this voluntarily, as
it does add to the integrity, but OVC should take the stand that it is
not required for OVC. this will reduce the cost of operation of the
OVC system compared to others that are less manual-audit friendly.

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 Sun Feb 27 17:17:13 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 17:17:13 CST