slashdot discussion

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 14:52:22 CST

This is a discussion thread from Slashdot. Let's hope that everyone reacts
the way 'spun' did...

This is a good argument for punch-hole voting... (Score:5, Interesting)
by rthille (8526) <> Alter Relationship
<> < {web-slashdot}
{at} {} <>>
on Friday March 19, @10:30AM ( #8610009
( <>)
And if you want to bring it into the new millenium, then put a touch screen
kiosk in there with a 'printer' which after you make your selections, it
punches the holes for you and spits the ballot out. You then review it, put
it in the privacy sleeve and walk it to the ballot box. Or you feed it back
into the 'printer', where it's destroyed and you try again.

Why is this concept so hard?

Re:This is a good argument for punch-hole voting.. (Score:4, Interesting)
by laird (2705) <> < laird@io . c om
<mailto:laird%40io%20.%20c%20om>> on Friday March 19, @12:02PM ( #8611238
(Last Journal: Monday April 07, @07:39AM
That's exactly what the Open Voting Consortium's system does. Check out for the software. They've even got an online demo of
the system so that you can see what the ballot looks like.

The process is:
- Use a touchscreen (or audio for blind voters) station to enter your votes.
This prints out a human readable ballot.
- If you want, take your ballot to a verification station that will read
your ballot back to you. This is a stand-alone system, so it can't "cheat"
coordinating with the voting station.
- Bring your ballot to a poll worker, who will scan it, and store your
ballot in a locked box.

For an audit, you can count the physical ballots and match them against the
electronic vote tallies, and of course the physical ballot "wins" if there's
any discrepancy.

And, of course, since the software is open source, anyone can read the code,
or set up their own test system.
Support open source voting! Visit the Open Voting Consortium
<> []!

Re:This is a good argument for punch-hole voting.. (Score:2)
by spun (1352) <> Alter Relationship
<> <
loverevolutionar ... m ['o.c' in gap]
on Friday March 19, @01:02PM ( #8612071
(Last Journal: Thursday March 18, @06:24PM
Gosh. This is exactly the kind of e-voting system I (and anyone else with an
IQ over 90) could have thought up. Sounds simple and tamper proof. So why
couldn't Diebold come up with a system like this? Oh, yes. It's simple and
tamper proof. Really makes you think that the only reason they implemented
their system the way they did is specifically to cheat.
-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room K5,
just along the corridor. Stupid git.

Re:This is a good argument for punch-hole voting.. (Score:2)
by Ben Hutchings (4651) <> Alter
Relationship <> on
Friday March 19, @02:18PM ( #8613056
( <>)
It wouldn't look cool enough. The design that Diebold is using seems to have
been driven by marketing to look high-tech. There may also have been a
mistaken belief that a solid-state system would be more reliable than one
that depending on printing and reading paper (a paper jam could take out a
terminal for the day since election workers can't be seen to tamper with
them). In practice the Diebold terminals seem to be amazingly unreliable
despite only printing totals.

Popkin, Laird
Director of Digital Technology <>
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
tel: 212/275-4016
mobile: 917/453-0700

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST