Re: Please find evidence of >80bit election

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 12:27:07 CDT

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>

>Btw. Possibly slightly contra Karl, I don't see a need for a whole lot
>of error correction in codes. A CRC can detect accidental corruption.
>But if a barcode goes bad, for whatever reason, the simple fallback is
>to require a manual examination of the printed content of the ballot.
>We don't -need- to be able to reconstruct the barcode for every
>possible error on it--just know when to treat it as non-readable.

pro and con issues here:
having contest fall on bit boundaries is useful because
Conventional ballots also have the property that glitch in one race does not affect the readability of the other races. That's nice.

on the other hand bit's saved by avoinding sighting contests on bit boundaties could used as part of Error Correcting code might dominate the independence effect in terms of relaibility.

And to the extent that you detect a bar code is bad then you always have the text portion of the ballot to fall back on.

thus reliable detection of mis-reads is the number one issue.
==================================================================
= 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