RE: New to group

From: <clintcurtis_at_clintcurtis_dot_com>
Date: Sun May 08 2005 - 19:49:37 CDT

Yes, I'm the guy reffered to on BradBlog. I'll look over
http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/ archive.
Thanks,

Clint

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] New to group
> From: "Ed Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sun, May 08, 2005 8:33 pm
> To: "Open Voting Consortium discussion list"
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
> Hello Curtis:
>
> Welcome aboard Curtis. Are you the Clint Curtis referred to here:
> http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com/2004/12/breaking-update-clint-curtis-stuns.html?
> Also, when you say DOT are you referring to a Department of Transportation,
> such as FDOT? I'm sure by now you've read our FAQ on our web site so you
> are pretty much up to speed on the basics. For more information you can
> also check our searchable correspondence archive at:
> http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/. We have had extensive
> discussions over the issue of bar codes versus OCR so if you weigh in on
> that (after searching the issue in the archives please) I know the rest of
> us would be grateful.
> --
>
> 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: <clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com>
> To: <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 1:52 PM
> Subject: [OVC-discuss] New to group
>
>
> > My name is Clint Curtis. I am new to the group so it will take me a
> > while to get up to speed on what you are doing.
> >
> > What I have been proposing is simple open source software that is
> > running on a non-networked non-propriety system. This system could be
> > done entirely on surplus equipment and thus bring the cost to the
> > states down to something that is hard for anyone to refuse.
> >
> > One key element is that it would print two receipts. One used for the
> > official ballot which would be spot checked against the machine totals
> > (counts should match exactly) and the other to be preserved for open
> > inspection by any interested party (party as in person not necessarily
> > as in political). In the event that the spot checks prove the machine
> > totals to be in error, a hand recount can be mandated.
> >
> > I am not a fan of the scanning technology. The touch screens can be
> > provided for next to nothing and can be equipped with a JAWS system
> > (http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_products/software_jaws.asp), which
> > will make it accessible to the blind. Scanners are inherently
> > proprietary and thus add an extra layer of invisibility that can be
> > attacked by those with the money and motivation to do so. Might be
> > useful to spot check the touch screen count but my experience using
> > OCR, barcode, and positional mapping (while doing doc management at
> > NASA and DOT) was that their reliability would be less than perfect.
> > Have not looked at the systems in the last couple of years but I
> > believe the totals would need to match exactly in order restore
> > confidence in the voting system.
> >
> > That is where my position has been but I am eager to continue to monitor
> > the discussion group and learn better ways.
> >
> > Clint
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:25 2005

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