RE: New to group

From: <clintcurtis_at_clintcurtis_dot_com>
Date: Mon May 09 2005 - 08:36:20 CDT

What is the error rate?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] New to group
> From: Fred McLain <mclain@zipcon.net>
> Date: Mon, May 09, 2005 1:41 am
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
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