Re: Large Ballot Redux

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 11:21:42 CDT

On Jun 3, 2004, at 12:07 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> But a few of them had more than two candidates,
>> so throw in a few more bits there, maybe 160-170 bits using
>> bit-boundaries. And even ignoring bit boundaries, many of the
>> contests
>> are 4-option, not 3-option (e.g. Smith vs. Jones, not Judge Brown
>> Yes/No), which adds some bits to the absolute optimal encoding. So
>> maybe that's 140 bits rather than 121.
>>
> Okay, anyway... a 3.5 in 1-D barcode--not a problem.

Didn't we decide 140-160 bits was a little too much to comfortably put
in Code128? Or at least getting to the high side of it. Then maybe we
want to throw in 40 bits or so of global identification (state,
precinct, date, ballot-id, etc), more if we encode the global info more
verbosely like Arthur wants (i.e. he want to spell out the date, not
look it up from a table). And maybe another 64 bits of crypto, or even
128+ bits of crypto if we do things Arthur wants.

It starts to look like too many bits for 1-D, I think. Certainly not
orders-of-magnitude too much; but even if we spill over our 1-D limit
by 20% or 50%, that kills it. Well, obviously, even one bit more than
whatever we decide is allowable is... disallowed.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:04 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT