Re: Summary paper ballot

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2004 - 00:24:11 CDT

This raises a couple of issues that I am not certain have been
completely addressed or agreed upon.

The OVC model is proposing three distinct indications of voter
selections:

1) The printed ballot, indicating via human readable, printed
characters, each voters' selections.

2) A barcode on the printed ballot indicating a machine/computer
generated, and a machine/computer readable, summary of the actual text
contained on the printed ballot.

3) An electronically stored record (removable media, network, whatever)
record of the voter's selections.

Only ONE of these three options can serve as the "official" ballot. The
other two choices are merely convenient for tabulating the ballot and/or
acting as an audit trail for the "official" ballot (indication of voter
selections intententions). If we do not adequately address this issue,
then it will become a matter for the judiciary to decide and rule upon,
on the first ocassion that the OVC system is challenged. Understanding
that at some point in time a challenge to the OVC software and/or model
will be made, it is perhaps best to decide this issue sooner, rather
than later.

IMHO,

James,

PS: I am supportive of the "Human Readable" printed ballot serving as
the "official" representation of voters' choices. The electronically
stored record serving as an audit of the printed ballot, and the barcode
serving as a convience for tabulation/"tracking" purposes.

On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 17:21, David Mertz wrote:
> charlie strauss <cems@earthlink.net> wrote:
> |There has been some discussion on whether "summary paper ballot" or
> |"paper summary ballot" is a better term.
>
> Let's please agree herewith to push the phrase "Summary Paper Ballot" in
> talking with reporters, legislators, and the like.
>
> I don't feel that strongly about the word order, but this one sounds
> slightly better to me. As it does to Charlie, Alan, and everyone else
> who has opined, with the exception of Arthur. We should choose this
> standard usage, and stick with it.
>
> There are several oppositions to keep in mind when explaining the term
> (I mentioned this already). Firstly, "Paper Ballot" is very different
> from "Electronic Ballot" or "On-Screen Ballot."
>
> A Summary Ballot is different from a "Full Ballot" (whether that Full
> Ballot is pre-printed with a voter filling in boxes, or printed
> verbosely onto plain paper at a voting station).
>
> All the combinations are possible:
>
> Summary Paper Ballot (the OVC system)
> Full Paper Ballot (not OVC design, but nothing terrible)
> Summary On-Screen Ballot (presented at end of DRE voting: BAD)
> Full On-Screen Ballot (ditto, modula GUI interface details)
>
> Of course, the OVC design still has one or more "Ballot Entry Screens"
> in the touchscreen interface (the RII doesn't really give a meaning to
> this). Those BESs superficially resemble screens that a DRE might use,
> but they are, for OVC, merely helpful widgets to create the real (paper)
> ballot. OVC may well use a Summary On-Screen Ballot Entry Screen--say
> right before the voter sees a "Print Now" button (or maybe not, but that
> detail is inessential here).
>
> Yours, David...

==================================================================
= 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 23:17:24 2004

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