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

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Tue May 26 2009 - 12:06:19 CDT

Arthur Keller wrote:
> At 6:45 PM -0700 5/25/09, Joe wrote:
>> How about instead of machine marks, you have two poll workers thumb
>> print each official ballot so there is a wet ink print. This would
>> authenticate the document beyond question.
>> maybe you could have a timestamp below the thumbprint.
> Joe, ballots are supposed to be anonymous (not traceable to an
> individual), except for provisional ballots in limited circumstances.
> Once it is determined a vote-by-mail ballot is to be counted, it
> should be removed from the envelope without examination and placed in
> a pile of ballots to be processed.
> Also recording the order in which voters appear is considered illegal
> in many jurisdictions.
The pollworkers' thumbprints don't violate voters' anonymity, and they
provide less information about sequencing than some other voting
mechanisms. Ballot boxes implicitly preserve pretty fine-grained
sequence information, and e-voting machines can (and most probably do)
preserve absolute sequence information via internal timestamps. Also,
logs preserve sequence information, which can then be correlated
with ballots to determine pretty clearly who voted which ballot.

The proposed timestamps, on the other hand, provide too much sequencing


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 23:17:06 2009

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