Re: TED SELKER: US Election Assistance Commission--Questions

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 17:52:39 CDT

Ted Selker, MIT is proposing the following voter verified system:

instead of paper, record a machine generated audio readback of the voter's choices. This can actually be done concurrently with the voting process. Selker thinks that ergonomically this concerrent readback may have a higher voter awareness that checking after placing the vote. The audio tape is machine readable in principle.

Selker noted that the concurrency of the readback is important. He cited one election using VVPAT where when voters relaized they had a bad abllot only 1 in ten chose to revote.

At first I thought, well continuous tape = Bad since it gives vote order. but then It occured to me that two things could be done to solve that issue. 1) do it just like OVC does. OVC shuffles the ballots AFTER the election. I principle one could re-record the tape and randomize the order of the items on the serial tape AFTER the election. 2) alternatively rather that write to a tape, write to a write-once cd. place the items on this in files stored in random order on the disk. In both cases its clearly esseintial that the recodring/rerecording device is separate from the touch screen, and ideally is a dumb machine (to avoid machine collusion).

anyhow, ignoring any dislike for Ted Selkers other opinions, are there problems or complications with this approach? One possible objection is that it would not work for deaf voters or votrs with no spoken language (hey dont laugh! One of the speakers at the EAC was worried about voters with no written language in new mexcico)

= 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 23:17:24 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT