Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 16:33:43 CDT

Ron Crane wrote:

> One of our procedures should require them to be posted behind glass at
> each precinct, as well as on the 'net.

Well the California rules say that the precinct totals must be added up
in the precinct and posted at the polling place. Doesn't say "under glass".

The way the draft OVC system works as I understand it is that as part of
the end-of-day procedure, the CD-Rs from each station are read and
"totalled up" right there on one machine, which prints a "precinct
summary sheet". This is different than the "voter verified paper". The
summary sheet goes up on the wall or whatever.

>> I would argue that the privacy rights of the minority party folks
>> don't outweight the public's right to fair elections with oversight.
>
>
> I have a big problem with that. The election is not fair if its
> conduct disadvantages some participants because of their party
> membership or choice of candidates. This is particularly so when it
> disadvantages small parties and little-known candidates. We hardly
> need to give the major parties more power.
>
> Unfortunately, I think transparency and fairness pull in opposite
> directions here, and fairness must prevail.
>
> -R

Yup. Pretty much.

Jim
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:18 2005

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