Re: CA "Accessible Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail Systems" standards posted

From: Charlie Strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Tue Jun 15 2004 - 22:24:02 CDT

On Jun 15, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:

>
> I don't understand the rationale for not letting the voter touch the
> paper ballot.

I believe there are two major reasons for this and one minor one:

1) ballot reconcilation and the primacy of the electronic ballot.
Many people consider that the paper trial is there as a check on the
electronic ballot. the electronic ballot will be the vote and the
paper possibly never even check except in certain extraordinary kinds
of recounts. In this case its vital that every electronic vote have
a paper record. Thus the mercuri concept of not letting the voter
touch the ballot to prevent them from taking it or spoiling it or
mischeviously substituting another fake ballot (to cause havoc in a
recount)

2) to permit paper tape systems to work.
try to imagine a 57" paper tape on thin paper being handled by a voter
then re-fed into a machine and having a hope of all these still being
in machine recountable shape later on.

3) enabling Real time paper tapes
one of the possible advantage of paper tape systems over cut-sheet
"ballot printers" is that they can, in principle, print in real time
as the voter decides on each race and the print out visible to the
voter. This plausibly may have higher voter cognizance (loke ted
Selker's audio tape). offer less delays, and make correcting mistakes
direct (rather than destoying the printed ballot and re-casting a new
one). I note that paper tapes may not neccessarily be real-time in
practice. But to have this even be possible the tape needs to be kept
out of the grubby voters fingers.

>
> If the requirement for encasing the ballot so the voter does not touch
> it were removed, then that would be better for the OVC approach in
> California.

It would seem that all of the cut sheet systems (OVC, Automark and
accupol) suffer from the same problem. Accupol at least could in
principle be redesigned to use the glass approach, but automark
(vogueelection.com) could not be easily redesinged to have one.

>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
> At 4:43 PM -0700 6/15/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/
>> avvpat_standards_6_15_04.pdf
>>
>>
>> Press release about it
>> http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/
>> press_release_avvpat_06_15_04.pdf
>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:16 2004

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