Re: Alternatives to a single bar code

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 12:13:56 CDT

At 10:08 AM -0700 5/5/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > The BVA has to report the ballot choices as they will be counted.
>> The implication is that unless you move to one barcode per ballot
>> choice, the bar code for the BVA needs to be the *same* barcode used
>> for canvassing. Otherwise, the voter hasn't actually verified their
>> vote. I think that logically precludes the parallel barcode scheme
>> Alan is proposing.
>>
>I disagree. Adding a 2-D barcode would not invalidate the 1-D barcode.
>Part of the canvass would verify they indicate the same selections. It
>actually improves the overall security of the system.

Not if the 2-D barcode means that a ballot can be discarded for
"ballot stuffing." What's in the 2-D barcode that's not in the 1-D
barcode and why is it needed? What decisions are to be made on that
extra information?

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT