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

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Wed Jun 16 2004 - 08:44:23 CDT

On Jun 15, 2004, at 7:11 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:

> It looks like the standards were written for the Avante system.

More properly, it's the Mercuri system. Avante doesn't implement all
the features the standard requires.

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

Part of this is a legal distinction being made by the California folks.
I asked this question during the drafting of the standard, and they
asserted that systems like the OVC one, or the Populex one, or the
Vogue one, are all computer-based ballot marking devices, a different
class of system not covered by this standard.

> Also, how do you ensure that the earlier paper audit trails are not
> visible to the next voter.

If the standard doesn't address this, it should be considered an
oversight.

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:17 2004

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