Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 22:56:19 CDT

Hello Jim:

Actually, I like Joe Lunchbucket but Aunt Millie will do fine. We had been
talking about ink jet or laser printers. I think this scheme would work
better with two ink jet printers. The ballots can be essentially a
duplicate without any changes in the design except for a screened, "Audit
Only Copy," printed on the ballot vertically while they are being produced
but in a way to not obscure the actual votes. I'm a little confused on
where we would put the second printer for each voting machine or who would
go around and pick up the second ballot. The model we had been looking at
was a cpu and a printer attached under a table, say in some sort of thick
plastic basket. I guess we could find room for another printer and perhaps
some sort of bin that the second printer's output would drop into. Then
these audit only ballots would be picked up after the closing of the poll.
Still, considering the ability level of a typical poll worker there's going
to have to be a lot of training. Let's keep working on this. One thing for
sure though, you have to be clear to express that this isn't a voter
receipt.

-- 
Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy
Always work for the common good.
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
USA
I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim March" <jmarch@prodigy.net>
To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Cc: <Bev@blackboxvoting.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:05 PM
Subject: [OVC-discuss] Brand new concept in audit trails
> Folks,
>
> Bev Harris has been pushing me hard on various OVC issues, but mainly the 
> area of "auditability by Aunt Millie" - in other words, can a totally 
> techno-incompetent PC-less person trust the election when it was done 
> electronically?
>
> Well she and I came up with an answer.
>
> First, this is assuming we're dealing with an "all OVC" system rather than 
> a preliminary "stopgap tabulator replacement".
>
> The "terminal" people vote on is the type of box we've been discussing, 
> printing on 8.5x11 paper, etc.  It prints the paper ballot which is the 
> official ballot of record.
>
> But here's the trick: we print TWO copies of the paper ballot.
>
> One is white and looks just like the demo ballot Alan has been using at 
> speeches as a prop - but it's marked "BOX ONE" across the top, big 
> letters.
>
> The other copy...well it could be produced by carbon, or from a second 
> printer.  Either way, it's visibly a different color, it's marked "BOX 
> TWO", and it's got three pre-punched holes down one side so it can go in a 
> binder later.
>
> And that's the key.  "Box one" ballots go into that box, which goes back 
> to county elections HQ.  "Box two" end up in binders, one or two binders 
> per precinct depending on turnout, precinct size, etc.
>
> The binders can be "checked out and inspected" at a county office by 
> interested members of the public - in the same fashion, I can already go 
> down to a county election office and say "show me the campaign finance 
> binders for the mayor for 2003" or whatever.
>
> NOW the public can genuinely audit elections.  They can spot check 
> whatever precints they want, for at least 22 months post-election.
>
> As we got to this point, Bev got all happy and excited :).
>
> This is of course combined with everything else we've been plotting - the 
> CD-R audit lots, hashed data and programs, etc.
>
> Granted, there's some extra costs.  BUT the savings from running OVC gear 
> vs. Diebold/ES&S/etc is so extreme it'll more than make up for the cost 
> increase in paper handling which I would submit isn't that big a deal.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think carbons or two-part forms from 
> one printer are the answer.  The counties are used to buying pre-printed 
> ballots.  These would be simpler - two sheets are produced, the only text 
> on each are the "BOX ONE/BOX TWO" thing (or "BALLOT OF RECORD/PUBLIC AUDIT 
> COPY" if you like), and it goes into one box to be separated later.
>
> What else...the "official copy" would be white to aid in OCR down the 
> road.  The "public view copy" for the binders would be a different color.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Jim
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to 
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org 
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:15 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT