Re: flimsy paper?

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 14:52:46 CDT

Hello Lara and Arthur:

IBM and punch cards? They are probably still thinking
about the old Votomatic system. That's the one with
the famous hanging and pregnant chads. There are some
optical ballot scanners that are tough on paper. A
leading example of an optical scanner that would eat
regular paper is (surprise!) the Diebold Acuvote.
It's based on 'marksense' technology and was used in
the 2004 elections in SD County. While I didn't
actually try it with regular paper, it sure yanked
those big San Diego ballots right out of my hand
pretty hard. However, a typical machine feed scanner
should have no real problems with standard paper. The
real answer to the problem is to simply specify that
the scanner shall work reliably with 20# bond paper
and possibly specify it to be one misfeed per 5000
sheets fed. So, I think your person is talking about
either behavior of low quality or older equipment or
else is listening to FUD.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

--- Arthur Keller <> wrote:
> I actually prefer 24 lb paper to 20 lb paper.
> Somewhat sturdier and
> easily handled by printers and scanners. You can go
> up to 32 lb
> without problems on most printers. Using card stock
> limits the type
> of printers and scanners to those with a
> straight-through paper path.
> Punching holes in the ballots do not make them human
> verifiable.
> Barcodes are more reliable than punch cards.
> Best regards,
> Arthur
> At 11:44 AM -0500 5/10/05, Lara Shaffer wrote:
> >I talked with someone in Ohio who was very adamant
> that if we used regular
> >printer paper it wouldn't be thick enough and would
> cause problems (paper
> >jams, scanning problems if the papers were folded
> or ripped, etc). He
> >suggested we use thicker paper. He was also a big
> fan of IBM cards and
> >programming the computer to punch a hole instead of
> print out the name of
> >the person the voter voted for.
> >
> >I promised him I would bring these issues up with
> the developers, so there
> >you go.... Feel free to respond if you think these
> are valid concerns.
> >Otherwise, don't worry about it....
> --
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto,
> CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <>
I blog now and then at:  <>
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= 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 23:17:31 2005

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