Re: Paperless voting Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 28, Issue 25

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Wed Feb 14 2007 - 16:30:31 CST

Hello: If there is general agreement about the problems with Holt's bill, then someone needs to contact Move-On directly. I've tried to reply to a mistaken receipt from them to ask them to contact OVC and gotten a polite, "We'll get back to you." message. I've got a lot of other stuff on my plate so I need to hand this off. Thanks, Ed Kennedy -- 10777 Bendigo Cove San Diego, CA 92126-2510 858-578-8842 Work for the common good. My profile: <> I blog now and then at: <> ----- Original Message ---- From: Richard C. Johnson <> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list <> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:13:58 PM Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Paperless voting Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 28, Issue 25 VVPB is simply a paper ballot, the official ballot in an election. At a minimum, there will be handicapped voters using touch screens to generate ballots, which will then be fed through precinct scanners. Precinct scanners are by far the most popular means of voting in the US and, except for handicapped voters, all ballots will be marked by the voter's own hand. Using ballot markers for non-handicapped voters is expensive, redundant, and rare. I agree with Phil that in almost all instances the ballot should be marked directly by the voter. Proprietary software used in precinct scanners, however, is now used to count the paper ballots. So...paper ballots are just the first step. The second critical step is to use Open Source software in the scanners and computers. The third step, still some ways off, is to have standard, Open Design hardware (computers and scanners) used. Otherwise, in step two, the use of COTS hardware helps to insure quality and voting-neutral manufacture until step three is feasible. -- Dick Phil Fry <> wrote: I don't know the definition of a VVPB, other than a Voter-Verified Paper Ballot. Given the context of the email below, it seems like it is something that could be produced starting with a DRE. But there is no way I know of to be sure the ballot is verified unless the voter fills it out by hand. The OVC approach produces a ballot that can be hand counted or scanned. But it doesn't force verification. A voter could take the printed ballot and put it in the stack/box for scanning, or even scan it him/her self without ever verifying the ballot. And in the case where a VVPB is read by an OS device, the voter is not normally (I don't know the OVC plan in detail) given feedback on how the ballot was read by the device. So a second verification step is really called for. Phil Richard C. Johnson wrote: So called "paper trails" have a record of having failed in actual use, being defective by design and not liable to fixing. They are flimsy and totally inappropriate for any archival record. It is a grave error to see them enshrined in the Holt Bill as a sop to those manufacturers who wish to use them to diffuse legitimate criticism. VVPAT is not enough; VVPB is what must be required. -- Dick John Burik <> wrote: While Holt II permits voting with paper ballots counted either via optical scan or by hand, its minimum standards permits DREs with verifiable paper trails of which at best only 10% will be counted in an audit. Its Sec. 327 permits reliance on machine counts in the presence of clear and convincing evidence the paper records have been compromised. I do not support AS WRITTEN. John, CASE On 2/14/07 3:00 PM, "" wrote: > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fw: Ban paperless voting (Edmund R. Kennedy) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:44:30 -0800 (PST) > From: "Edmund R. Kennedy" > Subject: [OVC-discuss] Fw: Ban paperless voting > To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list > > Message-ID: <> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > FYI >Dear MoveOn member, > Too many voters are still stuck with paperless electronic voting > machines?machines > that are vulnerable to tampering and malfunction. [snip] -- John Burik MEd, PCC _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST