Re: Peer Hand Counting

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Nov 12 2007 - 23:50:57 CST

I think it's an interesting idea. However, I also see more rigmarole at the
poll site -- and more time for the voter.

People are SO BUSY these days. We really have to take into consideration
how long the process is going to take for voters. To keep systematic voter
disenfranchisement to a minimum, we have to keep it fairly quick and easy
for the voter.

Now, some voters will stand in line for hours in order to vote. We have
seen that -- but we can't expect many voters to do that.

I don't know how much extra time for the voter would be involved with this
type of system. But it seems likely it would double the time. Some people
won't want to do it, and it might keep people from voting if they think it
will take too much time. Also, while normal people might find it easy
enough, some marginally capable people (for example, someone with gout)
might find it too taxing.

Like a lot of ideas, human trials would help define the issues.

> Ron Rivest of MIT has a similar idea, but more fleshed out.
> Best regards,
> Arthur
> At 11:04 AM -0500 11/12/07, D. C. Lapena wrote:

[... ]
>>Could be handy in a
>>post-apocalyptic world.
Perhaps the best argument in favor of it. Also, it could be argued we are
already in a post-apocalyptic world.

Alan D.

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 Fri Nov 30 23:17:21 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST