Re: voter-induced compromise of the paper trail

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 15:36:24 CST

On Nov 12, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Brendan LeFebvre wrote:

> It's been established that a "ballot-under-glass" scheme is untenable
> due to the specialized equipment involved.

It's hardly established to be untenable! Avante and Sequoia make
systems
that do this in the US (And the Avante one cuts the paper between
ballots
in order to preserve privacy). Indra, a Spanish company, makes a ballot
under glass scheme that has been used in Tierra del Fuego. These
systems
seem to work!

> But what is to stop a voter from leaving the polling place with his
> paper ballot, either by neglect or as part of a payoff scheme? This
> compromises the vote both by enabling such schemes and by affecting
> hand-recount totals.

The ballot out-from-under glass schemes on the market, for example, from
Populex and Vogue/ES&S, all require that the voter drop the ballot into
a ballot box that incorporates a precinct-count scanner. If you take
the ballot from the polling place, it doesn't get counted, so all you
did is prove, by presenting the ballot to your vote buyer, that you
didn't vote.

                        Doug Jones
                        jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST