Re: Integrating two solutions (related to the Calif. bill thread)

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Wed Jan 21 2009 - 21:23:25 CST
Preventing occasionally-significant ballot ambiguity is not remotely worth the security risks of leaving the general voting population alone with computational ballot presentation, selection, and recording devices. The Minnesota process has taken awhile, but so? Further, much of the process has involved legal arguments over whether to count various categories of absentee ballots, not the interpretation of the ballots themselves.

As for under/over-vote issues, these can be addressed much more securely by using precinct scanners.

We need voting systems that most members of the general public can effectively supervise, not systems chock-a-block with vulnerabilities whose depths even experts can't plumb.


Edward Cherlin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Ronald Crane <> wrote:
Why not (1) hand-filled paper ballots for the general voting population;

See Minnesota. We need ballot markers that will produce clean,
indisputable ballots. No overvotes, no unintentional undervotes, no
extra marks, and so on.

Also, see "Landslide" Lyndon Johnson for only one example of why paper
is inherently hackable.

Vote-PADs for the disabled who can use them, and OVC-style ballot printers
for the disabled who need the extra assistance; (3) OVC-style scanners to
count the ballots (preferably at each precinct); and (4) the Humboldt
procedure/hand audits to check the counting?



Jim March wrote:

Let's step back a sec and look at the landscape here.

There are four reform solutions on the table right now:....


OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Jan 7 00:09:49 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 00:09:57 CST