Re: Alternatives to a single bar code

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 20:33:57 CDT

Steve,

> I think it's important to separate how one counts the ballots (what you
> refer to above as "scoring methods") from how one marks the ballots
> (X's or equivalent vs. numbers). ....
>
They can be separated in certain respects. In other respects, they can't be
separated. All ranked preference schemes are going to be marked differently
and counted differently from plurality methods.

> I'm not asking you to promote one method of /scoring/ over another; I'm
> asking you to support all methods of /marking/ ballots so that
> jurisdictions may decide what method of scoring they want to use based
> on political, not economic, considerations.
>
We will do that. The point had to do with bits that needed to be encoded.
Unless a jurisdiction is using ranked preference, the number of bits that
need to be encoded is usually pretty small. If there was a financial
benefit to making the system so that cheapo scanners could be used where
small numbers of bits need encoding, then we'd like to offer that option.
If as Karl predicts, there is no $ economy between 1-D and 2-D, then we
won't bother ... we'll just go to 2-D.

Alan D.
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:25 2004

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