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

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 12:26:01 CDT


> This has real potential as an alternative to a paper record. I think
> it should be taken seriously. ....
Does Selker's method require headphones for every voter? The voter has to
listen to the selections read back?

If so, I think the danger of this system is that you'd train voters in such
a way that they always hear the vote read back correctly and over time they
would stop checking. Eventually, few, if any, normally sighted voters would
take the time to listen.

As always, trials are needed. The ballot printing system we are proposing
would most likely find virtually all of the normally sighted voters checking
the paper and this would not diminish over time. I predict that people
would tire of taking the extra time to put on headphones and listen to the
selections being read.

> I should note that this scheme is
> similar to another proposal for voter-verified audit trails that
> involved video capture of the "voter verification screen" of a DRE.
> Each time the DRE presents a voter with a screen saying "here are
> the candidates you selected", when the voter presses the "confirm
> selection" button, an auxiliary bit of hardware grabs a screen shot
> off the video interface and stores it on a random sector of a
> write-once recording medium. It is important that the screen shot
> be captured from the hardware interface to the display screen and
> that the frame grabber have no text recognition software in it.
This scheme still has the "trust us" factor. The average person would have
no idea if this really means anything.

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 23:17:27 2004

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