Re: Reduced Paper Ballot -- RPB

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 13:53:01 CDT

This definition is really bad.

(b) (1) touchscreen has nothing to do with DRE architecture. Input could be
from some other device (keypad, dial, etc.).

(2) Just becase it uses an "electronic screen" does not mean the vote is
recorded electronically.

(3) Ignores the essence of DRE.. i.e., that the vote is recorded

Who wrote this? Is this Perata's bill? I'll talk with them about it.


> Great points... I'm not sure if anyone out there has been following SB
> 1438[1]... but look at this definition of a DRE that seems close to
> being enacted as law:
> [1]
> (b) ''Direct recording electronic voting system'' means a
> voting system that includes, but is not limited to, any of the
> following:
> (1) A device or system that employs an electronic touchscreen
> upon which appear the names of candidates and ballot titles of
> measures that are to be voted on by touching the designated area
> on the screen.
> (2) A device or system that employs an electronic screen upon
> which appear the names of candidates and ballot titles of measures
> that are to be voted on by pressing or otherwise activating a
> designated mechanism of the device.
> (3) Any device or system that does not require or permit the
> voter to record his or her vote directly onto a tangible ballot.
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:56:06 -0600 (GMT-06:00), charlie strauss
> <> wrote:
> >
> > Joe,
> > Alan's point is that repeatedly we have seen laws and proposals in which
assumptions about the form of the ballot dont really apply to the OVC
schema. Alan's original message actualy was quite clear when you understand
this; too often OVC seems to fall in the cracks of various legal
definitions. Alan is trying to to provide a lexicon for the law makers and
policy makers that allows cases that describe the OVC schema to be
unambiguosly defined. This has the desriable side effect of creating a
recognition that the system is different.
> >
> > to give another example, many laws talk about DREs very losely and its
not clear the way some laws are written if the oVC is a DRE. its not by
most standards since, for example, the official ballot record is not
Directly Recorded in the Electronics. On the other hand all of the laws
covering electroinc voting machinery have been lumped without distinction
under the heading of DRE since no one had a clear way of distinguishing
them. Thus its not always clear what laws should be applied and people may
get tempeted to treat the laws like a chinese menu, picking from different
sections what suits their fancy rather than trying to address them directly.
> >
> > Alan is just giving us one of several terms needed to build up a new
legally distinguishable unambiguous lexicon.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <>
> > Sent: Jun 18, 2004 11:33 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: [voting-project] Reduced Paper Ballot -- RPB
> >
> > I'm having a hard time figuring out what we want!
> >
> > What part of the definition of "ballot" isn't sufficient? The OVC
> > system is basically a complicated ballot printer that also allows for
> > the efficiency of digital technology with respect to quick counting
> > (USB dongle, etc.). So, we need to have a clear illustration of the
> > qualities of an OVC system-printed ballot vs. everything else. In the
> > end, it should be the same as an "official paper ballot" with the
> > exception that an elections system tranlated the intent of the voter
> > (via touchscreen) to markings on a piece of paper (via electronic
> > signals and a printer).
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> > UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
> >
> > blog:
> >
> --
> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
> blog:
= 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 23:17:19 2004

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