Re: New to group

From: Fred McLain <mclain_at_zipcon_dot_net>
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 00:41:12 CDT

Hi Clint,

Welcome to the group. It's nice to see that you have an interest in
what we are doing.

I'll have to take you to task on the scanner issue. The equipment we've
been using so far is a modified cue-cat scanner. This is a pretty darn
simple instrument that has no processor and works more or less like an
optical switch. It has a mystery chip that is surface mounted on the
PCB that makes me wonder, but I can't see any commercial sense in that
being an intelligent part. The software on the computer side is all
open source. If you can think of a way to hack the cue-cat I'd be very
interested in hearing about it. Even so, the paper ballots are there
and available for a hand recount. OVC advocates a partial hand recount
in any electronic voting system.

        -Fred-

On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 13:52 -0700, clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com wrote:
> 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
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:26 2005

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