Re: Peer Hand Counting

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Tue Nov 13 2007 - 11:11:30 CST

Bev, very interesting idea. It does not solve
the problem with overvotes. Overvotes (on the
infamous Butterfly ballot) and accessibility were
the reasons for real-time ballot checking.

Accessibility can be handled through Electronic
Ballot Printers, particularly those that print a
regular optical scan ballot (as I have started
advocating).

The overvote problem can be handled by adopting
Approval Voting, in which every mark counts for
the candidate marked. In Approval Voting, there
are no overvotes, by definition.

As an open source advocate, I do not think that
this eliminates the need for open source and
better systems for vote counting.

This idea is related to my idea of having the
scanner take a picture of the ballot when it is
scanned and then to distribute those pictures to
all who want them.

Bev's idea is related to an idea presented at
VoComp 2007. See Demo of "Open Counting": A
Paper-Assisted Voting System with OMR-Based
Public Counting by Anwar Adi, Wael Adi (Tech.
Univ. of Braunschweig), M. Schüler (ESCENA),
Peter Fröhlich (JHU). on the
http://www.vocomp.org website.

Best regards,
Arthur

At 1:06 AM -0600 11/13/07, Bev Harris wrote:
>How about simply allowing the public to observe and videotape votes fed into
>scanners?
>
>Procedural changes require only that votes are scanned after polls close, not
>during, that scanners be positioned so that the public can view each ballot
>face as it is fed into the machine at the polls,
>and feeding ballots one by one
>at 4-second intervals to allow each ballot to be captured on video by the
>public if they so choose.
>
>And please, don't say this allows vote selling
>unless you are publicly on record
>objecting to absentee voting on the grounds that it allows vote selling.
>
>I see only the following objections to this:
>
>1) crypto people fighting for crypto wanting to block other solutions
>2) open source people thinking open source
>solves the public oversight equation,
>thinking this will water down arguments for open source
>
>The math works (at 4 seconds per ballot, you can scan over 1000 per hour)
>The implementation schedule works (requires no new laws in most states, only
>minor procedural changes)
>
>Solves chain of custody issues, solves the issue of counting votes in public,
>solves many Freedom of Information issues.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
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  http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:22 2007

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