Re: Consensus of the OVC

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 14:10:43 CDT


> It seems to me that this is something that is best left to the person
> writing the ballot config for a particular election: if it's conf'd to
> "full-face" or "minimal page turns" or whatever, great; if it's conf'd to
> "73-page ADD special" that's fine too. ...
Right now, standards in this area are crappy. Over time, NIST is likely to
get involved and other standards (e.g., IEEE) may evolve that are relevant.
The OVC will certainly be involved with NIST, EAC and IEEE with these

> .... For all we know, the Belgians might have guidelines that
> state the exact opposite of the FEC: "Not to
> exceed one contest per page" or something similar.
Most of the world has *very* simple ballots compared to the U.S. How many
pages do you need to select your member of Parliament?

> We should impart our design with the flexibility of a thousand gymnasts,
> if we really want it to be maximally effective from California to
> Calcutta....
I agree with this.

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 23:18:06 2004

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