Re: Reflections on the election and implications for the OVC

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed Nov 03 2004 - 15:42:13 CST

> 1. OVC uses barcodes to encode the vote data instead of optical marks
> ("fill in bubbles"). It'd be straightforard (i.e. an implementation
> issue, not architectural) to print out simple marks instead, though in
> that case you lose:

Well... also using optical mark bubbles seems to require listing all
the candidates on the ballot, rather than only the selected one(s).
Think the CA recall, as a usual example. So that pushes us to
multi-page ballots for many elections.

Moreover, it would not be difficult for observers who see ballots to
distinguish marks made by hand to those printed by machine. Given that
no real masking of hand-filled versus machine-filled bubbles exists, I
think it's better to stick with the current "Dechert system" for EVMs.
The advantages of those have been well discussed on this list.

Of course, polling places should have a backup supply of manually
completable ballots as well. This accommodates a concern about
machines that go down (because of power failure, or for other reasons).
  It's not implausible to make a scanner that can recognize either type
of ballot, even though (or since) the types would be identifiably
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:43 CST