Another question: do we want machine-marked ballots for everybody?

From: Jim March <1_dot_jim_dot_march_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 12:40:30 CDT

One way to radically drop hardware costs is to have fewer ballot
marking stations per precinct, and supply most voters with a blank
ballot that they do their own "fill in the bubble" with. The same two
or three stations that can provide these blank ballots CAN act as
ballot printers taking in a blind voter's vote, so whenever a blind or
otherwise disabled voter comes in, just divert one of the three ballot
printing stations for their use.

You've now dropped your total number of stations from six-to-ten (per
precinct) down to three. (And the precinct could run OK on two, so
you have some hardware redundancy.)

Obviously, you now HAVE to do graphic scanning at the precinct as an
end-of-day process, with software that then reads the bubble position
marks. That's not hard. And by dropping the number of PCs, you've
now more than paid for the precinct graphical scanner device plus one
or two DVD writers to burn results to.

The reason I'm queasy about machine-marked paper ballots is, well,
people suck at proof-reading with up to an 80% failure rate - and it
gets higher the further down the ticket you get (judges, etc.).

>From both a safety and cost perspective, doesn't this make more sense?

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun May 31 23:17:04 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 31 2009 - 23:17:07 CDT