Re: SB 1438 DRE definition amended...

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Fri Jul 02 2004 - 11:18:20 CDT

I'm still concerned. THREE reasons
first I'd say that the "ballot reconciliation procedure" is an integral part of the OVC system. This procedure is a hybrid of electroinc and paper. I'm not talking about the fact that the results are scanned into a data base. I'm talking about reconciling the electronic record in the touch screen with the summary paper ballots which inherentt depends upon the DRE portion of the overall process (which is not DRE per se).

Second, the OVC solution also is integrally open source. We have had discussions here about how to rig voting machines even if there is a paper record and the counter measures manly come down to open source. If all vendors who provided a paper trail are hereby excluded from the law then this will include non-open source solutions. That is painting over the problem not solving it.

Third, I think its a bad idea to hope for a law which does not cover the OVC case. You WANT the law to talk about the OVC case.

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Sent: Jul 2, 2004 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] SB 1438 DRE definition amended...

> The definition of DRE in SB 1438 was amended yesterday...
> (b) "Direct recording electronic voting system" means a voting system
> that records a vote electronically and does not require or permit the
> voter to record his or her vote directly onto a tangible ballot.

Excellent, Joe. We can do this.

Alan D.
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT