Re: Polling Place conditions, reframing the issue

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu May 13 2004 - 12:40:53 CDT

At 10:16 AM -0700 5/13/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>I think we're taking an engineering approach to equipment security
>when we might want to consider more of a risk based approach,
>especially for the Mark I. How likely is the equipment going to be
>vandalized or sabotaged. Should we suggest that one or more
>redundant machines be on standby at a polling place? Worst case is
>great for structures and electrical wiring but it may not be a good
>approach for this sort of administrative question.

To me, the question is, how do we handle the votes made on a
vandalized (or merely malfunctioning) machine?

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 23:17:40 2004

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