Re: Consensus of the OVC

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 13:45:36 CDT

On May 26, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> I don't like the CURRENT CONTEST approach David suggests because it
> facilitates voting only for selected races and ignoring the rest of
> the ballot. Philosophically, I'd like voters to be encouraged to vote
> every contest. An unwieldy system may well mean that exasperated
> voters won't bother casting a vote for, say, cat catcher. But if they
> need to see that screen in order to vote for President or Senator,
> they'll slog through it.

I strongly disagree with this, philosophically. This isn't about the
particular left pane/right pane sketch I made. I think that
arrangement is plausible, but I am not deeply attached to.

But as a matter of principle, I want to make it as easy as possible for
voters to vote in EXACTLY those races that they WANT to vote in. In
other words, "No Preference Indicated" is a perfectly valid voting
preference, and we should not make indication of that preference any
more difficult than needed out of a desire to *force* voters to slog
through steps.

Moreover, enabling votes to be completed as quickly as possible (while
assuring accuracy of voter intent) is a BIG goal in the system. If 50%
of voters really don't care to vote for Cat Catcher, it's not a good
design if we add 20 seconds to each vote time in order to nudge voters
to vote for Cat Catcher. Letting everyone finish 20 seconds earlier
(or, anyway, half the voters) makes lines shorter and voters happier
and more confident about the votes they actually want to cast. And it
makes accurate verification of those votes more likely.

> I'm suggesting pagenated selection and (as much as possible) full-face
> verification. However, if you finad a problem in the displayed
> ballot, you click on the item with the problem, and the EVM takes you
> directly to make that choice again. Once your finished, you get back
> to the full-face verification. You do not have to remake the
> subsequent choices in sequence.

OK... let me understand this. After selecting votes, and pressing
"Next" a number of times, the voter is presented with a full-face
ballot. Actually, I think presenting a selections-only version (like
the printout) is fine, but that's a separate matter.

A voter notices she made the wrong choice for Contest #1, and clicks on
the Contest #1 area, thereby jumping to the paginated Contest #1
screen. This saves a bunch of click on "Back." After changing the
selection here (assuming everything else was as desired), how does the
voter get back to the verification screen? Is it still necessary to
click "Next" a lot of times? Or is there some other "Jump to
Verification" button? If there is a Jump button, is it only shown
during review, or could a voter Jump right after selecting Contest #1
for the first time?

I'm just trying to be clear on the design Arthur has in mind, before
weighing advantages or disadvantages it might have.
==================================================================
= 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 23:18:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:17 CDT