Re: Open Voting Consortium Press Release

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 01:00:07 CST

On Mar 25, 2004, at 1:27 AM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> The problem could be system error or voter error. We really need to
> handle the voter error case.

Right. The system error case isn't really different between OVC's
design and the "under glass" design.

> I'm used to the situation where you are given voting stock, feed it in
> and vote. If you spoil your ballot, you return it (they mark it
> spoiled) and then you get a new one. What's the equivalent here?
> How do you make sure someone doesn't print two ballots and put them
> both in the same privacy sleeve?

I don't really understand what you are asking here. I'm not advocating
"under glass", but criticizing it; still, I don't think that Mercuri
and gang have missed all the basic procedures for spoiling ballots:

With OVC:

1. Select votes and print a ballot
2. If ballot is inaccurate, return it to elections worker.
3. Elections worker marks or destroys spoiled ballot.
4. Elections worker resets vote station to enable re-vote
[...repeat as necessary, or until spoiled ballot limit...]
--> Put verified ballot in ballot-box

With "ballot under glass":

1. Select votes and print a ballot (under glass)
2. If ballot is inaccurate, push the "spoiled ballot" button.
3. Voting machine shreds the spoiled ballot.
4. Machine resets itself to enable re-vote
[...repeat as necessary, or until spoiled ballot limit...]
--> Push the "Ballot correct" button
   (ballot drops into box)

Machines with multiple paper paths are not rocket science. My desktop
printer does as much to print envelopes versus regular paper.
= 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 23:17:09 2004

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