Re: [OVC-discuss] I need your help today -- opposeHoltbillasintroduced

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 - 13:14:32 CDT

This could work: say the ballot comes out of the printer in a way that the printing is not exposed (either comes out face down or face up with a shield over it). At that point, the voter could ask for assistance if needed. The pollworker would place the ballot in a privacy folder for the voter (there would be some technique involved so the text would not be exposed. With the OVC system, at this point, the voter could elect to hear the selections read back by putting the barcode under a reader, or the pollworker could open the folder for the voter in such a way that the voter could see it but no one else could see it. Once the voter has satisfactorialy reviewed the ballot, the pollworker would walk over to the ballot box and cast the ballot for the voter.

However, unless a method like this is clearly allowable, we must oppose it.

Alan

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Jim Tobias
  To: 'Open Voting Consortium discussion list'
  Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] I need your help today -- opposeHoltbillasintroduced

  I guess it depends on the definition of "cast". Let's say the printer delivers the ballot to a position where the dexterity impaired voter can review it, then tells the pollworker that s/he is ready to have the ballot tallied, and there is some simple mechanical or non-mechanical privacy shield involved somehow, then we're okay. But if "casting" means delivering it to some tallying device at a distance, we've got a problem.

  I was considering going to the Disability Vote Summit in mid-July. After hearing about this issue I don't know if I feel more motivated, or less so....

  ***
  Jim Tobias
  Inclusive Technologies
  +1.908.907.2387 v/sms
  skype jimtobias

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: Alan Dechert [mailto:dechert@gmail.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:51 AM
    To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
    Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] I need your help today -- oppose Holtbillasintroduced

    I don't know any background on the "no-touch" feature, as you tactfully put it.

    I agree that assistance from a poll worker could work. However, the language seems to demand no assistance, saying, "privately and independently."

    If the process would explicity allow pollworker assistance, then it might be doable. However, that's not what it says now.

    Alan D

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jim Tobias
      To: 'Open Voting Consortium discussion list'
      Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] I need your help today -- oppose Holt billasintroduced

      Alan, can you provide any background on this specific "no-touch" feature? Was it requested by dexterity-disabled advocates?

      There are certainly several ways to address this issue *outside* of the technical design, with assistance from a poll worker. As long as the design does not prevent those solutions, it would be compliant with the language below, as I read it.

      Are there other objectionable provisions that you have not mentioned?

      ***
      Jim Tobias
      Inclusive Technologies
      +1.908.907.2387 v/sms
      skype jimtobias

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Nancy Tobi [mailto:nancy.tobi@gmail.com]
        Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:51 AM
        To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
        Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] I need your help today -- oppose Holt bill asintroduced

        Nice Alan. I can't believe this crap keeps on coming. And Holt thinks we are so stupid that we miss his multi-billion dollar toss to the unscrupulous e-voting industry with his never ending demands for more complexity, more opacity, more technocrap????

        On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com> wrote:

          Below is a copy of what I sent to our announcements list

          ********
          Dear Friends of Open Voting:

          I need your help today. As you may recall, US Representative Rush Holt has introduced several badly flawed voting reform bills in the past few years. We have opposed them for a variety of reasons.

          Last week, Holt introduced his new one: The Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2009 (HR 2894)
          http://holt.house.gov/voting.shtml

          In general, the bill is not as bad as the previous. Some provisions are good. Ban DREs, ban wireless, provide some funding for voting software that would be publicly available. However, overall, the bill is still bad. The deep flaw with this bill, generally speaking, remains the same: it would put the federal goverment too much into running the voting system. Holt is trying to do too much and making a mess of it.

          Parts of it are outrageously bad. The main offending part for me is where they say the machine for individuals with disabilities must allow the voter to "independently verify and cast the permanent paper ballot without requiring the voter to manually handle the paper ballot;" This is ridiculous. This the proverbial $900 hammer approach. No machine has this capability currently, and such a machine would be many times more expensive than necessary. Potential solutions would solve one almost non-existent problem and create several others -- besides the expense.

          It's the same mentality that led to adding the expensive printing mechanism to the DRE voting machines. Vendors didn't mind doing it as long as the government was paying for it. Guess what? Government paid for it. No wait, YOU paid for it. Now those machines are getting junked. So, tax-payers underwrote stupid voting architecture. Diebold et al got paid to develop it and sell it. Now the stupid machines go in the trash and Diebold keeps the money. It's another example of a very few outspoken "disabled rights activists" -- people in bed with industry -- creating a very expensive mandate.

          If we can't get this changed, the bill must be killed. Other parts of the bill should just be removed rather than fixed. We might support it if chunks of it were simply removed.

          A here is a link directly to the bill language.

          http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111Uxz8FM:e0:

             SEC. 102. ACCESSIBILITY AND BALLOT VERIFICATION FOR
             INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.
          ...

             (II) allows the voter to privately and
             independently verify and cast the permanent
             paper ballot without requiring the
             voter to manually handle the paper ballot;

          I need your help contacting Congress in opposition to this bill.

          I also need your financial support so OVC can continue to develop and demonstrate sensible open source voting technology, and defeat crappy legislation like this.

          _______________________________________________
          OVC-discuss mailing list
          OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
          http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
          By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      _______________________________________________
      OVC-discuss mailing list
      OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
      http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
      By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  OVC-discuss mailing list
  OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
  http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
  By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Jun 30 23:17:12 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 23:17:20 CDT