The merits of optical scan voting?

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 21:11:32 CDT

This is a very nicely done piece from someone who actually runs elections.

However - its still not goof proof - this scanning system can still be
interfered with and produce a phoney result (by tampering with the tallying
count software) - but assuming the right safeguards in place - it would be
possible to detect that post-election by hand counting enough of the scan

So - overall - it offers better audit trail than a DRE, but still not TLV
levels of trust - but I'd say better trust than the DRE approach alone.

Blind voters and disabled voters would still not like this as much - but
given that this could provide a more reliable approach than DRE at a
fraction of the cost - I'd say - better option - until a certified TLV-based
system is available.

I think though in a really close election in a critical State - there would
be challenges - and it would take time to sort that all out. That's one of
the supposed benefits of using DRE's in the first place - but sadly the
reverse has been the case.

The districting issues in CA certainly are a real challenge - to match the
right voter to the right ballot. Including a computer in the process to
print out the scan ballot could definately improve that matching process.
And would solve the blind / disabled voter part, and of course make
multi-lingual balloting easier.

Then again - a State could happily adopt optical scanning right now -
knowing that they could upgrade to a full TLV system later, once that had
been fully developed and certified, and the scanners would be 100% re-usable
as part of that.

The rush to DRE certainly is not justified by the current raft of issues
with DREs from trust to
reliability to high costs.


OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Jun 30 23:17:03 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT