Re: Reduced Paper Ballot -- RPB

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Fri Jun 18 2004 - 17:54:16 CDT

Alright, I think I'm confused again... please bear with me.

So, the OVC system-printed ballot will not necessarily show all the
contests in a given election? For example, in the recall election
here in CA last fall, the OVC system would have printed the only
choice the voter made for governor? (assuming no local provisions for
ranked voting) Or would it have printed all the candidates for
governor with a blank check box next to them? (except for the one the
voter chose, of course, which would have had a filled check box)

The intent of the statute below seems to allow the voter time to
inspect and understand a sample ballot so the will not be confused and
take forever when entering the voting booth (I'm not sure about CA,
but many states have laws about how long you're allowed to be in the
voting booth). Further, I wonder how the current crop of EVMs (DREs
or not) satisfy this requirement... that is, I can almost guarantee
that the sample ballot mailed to me for the recall election looked
substantially different than whatever was recorded into the machine's
memory/disk as my "official ballot". (I voted on a Diebold machine...
TS or TSx)

Joe

PS: As to the rules, I was just reiterating that the SoSs in most
states are empowered to make rules about elections systems...
sometimes those are enacted as law (as to become harder to repeal or
ignore), sometimes they're not.

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:21:47 -0700, Alan Dechert
<alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ah, I'm starting to get the drift. A lot of these rules are from CA
> > Election Code and are there for various reasons of public policy.
> > Some should apply to the OVC ballots, some don't really make sense in
> > the OVC contest... for example, there are specific laws for ballots
> > counted by "electronic or electromechanical devices":
> >
> >
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=13001-14000&file=13240-13247
> >
> Good one. For example, 13244 doesn't work with our summary ballot:
>
> 13244. The sample ballot provided pursuant
> to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 13300)
> shall be a substantial facsimile of the official
> ballot, including instructions to voters.
>
> > What is seems like we need is similar rules for machine-printed
> > official ballots. This is something that the SoS should promulgate.
> >
> Depends exactly what you mean by promulgate. I would say the OVC should
> promulate these proposed changes in code. We will promulgate these changes
> across state and local jurisdictions. The CA SOS is important, but the MA
> SOS is also important. Likewise for the other state governments we are
> working with.
>
> If we get the CA SOS on board, he is the one that should draft appropriate
> legislation and get sponsors in the legislature to get the legislation
> passed. So, in this sense, I agree.
>
> Speaking of getting our terminology into use.... I just got an email from a
> writer that wants to do a story. So we should make some quick decisions on
> what terms to use for now.
>
> Arthur suggested Paper Summary Ballot. We also discussed on the phone some
> issues with "computerized ballot marking system." I asked Doug Jones to
> comment but he may not be available until Monday.
>
> Alan D.
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
http://pobox.com/~joehall/
blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb/
==================================================================
= 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