Re: Initializing the voter cycle and disabilities

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Sun May 16 2004 - 00:31:18 CDT

At 11:47 AM -0700 5/15/04, Ed Kennedy wrote:
>Hello Arthur:
>
> My solution for primaries, although incomplete, is to have the
>voter not declare to the poll workers but instead make a choice on
>the first screen that comes up after initialization of the voting
>system. They would just click their desired party and then that
>ballot would come up on the screen. This doesn't have to be
>complicated. Also, many states have open primaries so that may not
>always be a relevant issue. The actual answer may vary from state
>to state.

Nice idea in theory, but unworkable in practice in states with closed
primaries. And that means that equipment that used such an approach
would not be adopted.

> As for the time limited pin numbers, that would require a
>network which is not permitted or a unique set of pin numbers to
>each machine. In that case, time limiting may not be necessary as
>that number would be a one time only use in each machine.
>This certainly is an interesting problem.

Then perhaps the suggestion is infeasible.

Best regards,
Arthur

>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:arthur@kellers.org>Arthur Keller
>To: <mailto:voting-project@lists.sonic.net>voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>Cc: <mailto:voting-project@lists.sonic.net>voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 3:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [voting-project] Initializing the voter cycle and disabilities
>
>So tell us how you would handle the problem of multiple ballot types
>(for primaries and multiple precincts). Only a registered
>republican (or in some jurisdictions, an independent) can vote in
>the republican primary. How do you handle that?
>
>Best regards,
>Arthur
>
>At 1:02 PM -0700 5/14/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Hello All:
>>
>
>
> Finally, I changed the subject to better match what we're
>actually talking about. Let's say we go with one time use cards. I
>know that in parking garages I occasionally use, the gate machine
>spits out a card with a magnetic strip included in the back from a
>roll of cards. When I head out of the garage, either I or the
>cashier puts the card into a reader. I pay an astonishing amount
>and then move on. The card gets thrown away and never used again.
>Something like that seems fairly attractive. I had been thinking
>that these cards could be pre written and come in a box of
>individual cards and not on a roll. As these cards are writable,
>they could be invalidated after use by the card reader in the EVM.
>This would obviate the need for a card writer in the polling place.
>This would also be another check against the number of ballots. As
>I've mentioned below, I'd sug! gest that 250 cards/machine would be
>plenty.
>
>
>
> Pin numbers could be printed on individual cards which would
>make the handing of them out a little easier. This way you would
>not have to deal with checking them off the list and with the other
>security issues. Once the card is gone, the number associated with
>it is obviously no longer available and the number is also
>invalidated by the machine once the print button is pushed on the
>screen. You would have to have a box of pin number cards for each
>machine. However, I understand that the typical voting station gets
>about 100 users a day. Probably 250 would be enough.
>
>
>
> Do the election laws require that during primaries, each voter
>declare a party affiliation or could they make that choice right on
>the EVM? This would simplify the pin number process (and for that
>matter, the smart cards). These do bring up disabled access issues
>especially for RII and for folks with something like muscular
>dystrophy that have problems with reliably controlling their
>fingers. Of course the coordination problem would be an issue all
>the way through the voting cycle. As this just occurred to me, have
>solutions been proposed?
>
>
>
>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
>"Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Unless they were time limited, say 5 minutes from issuance.
>
>Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:
>
>One-time use PINs would need to work on only one voting machine, or
>you could vote once on each voting machine.
>
>Yes, you need another machine for the poll worker to activate the
>smart card. It's especially important that this process work well,
>particularly for primaries or when there are multiple precincts at
>the same polling place.
>
>Best regards,
>Arthur
>
>At 11:41 AM -0700 5/14/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>>Hello Arthur:
>>
>> Then that means another machine at the poll judges table to
>>activate these cards. That gets a little more complicated. Was
>>something like a one time use PIN number discussed? Voters would
>>generally be used to those. I can see plenty of trouble with those
>>as well.
>>
>>Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>>
>>Arthur Keller wrote:
>>
>>A! t 10:58 AM -0700 5/14/04, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>>>Hello Arthur:
>>>
>>> I guess I don't understand the voting cycle. I know that the
>>>now decertified Diebold Acuvote Tsx has a smart card card reader
>>>that allows the voter to do just 1 voting cycle (in theory). Once
>>>the voter pushes the button on the screen that they are done, it
>>>apparently deactivates the card and expels it out of the machine
>>>and into the hands of the voter. The voter then gives card
>>>back to a poll worker who gives them an "I voted" sticker.
>>>
>>>What's to keep an EVM voter from voting again and again, then
>
> >>stuffing them all into the privacy folder and dropping them into the
>>>ballot box? Are we using a smart card? I don't see ! anything about
>>>a card reader.
>>
>>Earlier, I suggested using a smart card in the same way you mention.
>>I've acquired some smart card equipment, and Karl is experimenting
>>with it in his copious ;-) spare time.
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>10777 Bendigo Cove
>>San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>>
>>Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
>>
>>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
>>of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to
>>assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of
>>grievances."
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina! Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
>tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>
>
>
>10777 Bendigo Cove
>San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
>Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
>of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of
>grievances."
>
>
>
>10777 Bendigo Cove
>San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
>Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
>
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
>of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of
>grievances."
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
>tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:17:45 2004

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