Re: comments on the bit encoding scheme

From: Dennis Paull <dpaull_at_svpal_dot_org>
Date: Thu Oct 23 2003 - 13:28:52 CDT

Hi Alan et al,

In CA at least, there are always as many writein spaces as seats to be
filled. I think this is in the elections code. It certainly is on the
ballots in my county. It does not depend on whether there are registered
writeins or not.


At 07:45 AM 10/23/2003 Thursday , you wrote:
>> Now that I've taken the time to work with the bit encoding scheme, I
>> have a few comments.
>> 1) Since up to 3 candidates are allowed in the Cat Catcher field,
>> doesn't that mean that up to three write-ins should be allowed?
>This is a fair question. I have no idea but it's way too late to worry
>about this at this point for the demo.
>Probably, the real answer to this question is, "it depends." In many
>jurisidictions, write-ins are only allowed at all if there are candidates
>that have registered as write-ins. Besides that, I don't recall seeing any
>write-in space where I seen n of m contests.
>Keep in mind the overall concept here. Our demo is a kind of "what if"
>thing. We're not trying to develop some universal ballot at this point by
>following all the rules in existence.
>> 2) Ballot numbers: It occurred to me that some counties may not use
>> purely digit ballot numbers. For our demo this will not be problem
>> but we should not make such assumptions in the future!!!
>Similarly, this is a non-issue. If jurisdictions want to adopt our open
>voting software (remember, the production software will be a whole different
>project), they will be changing all sorts of things. Alpha versus
>alpha-numeric ballot numbers is way down on the list of issues. Over the
>next few years, the voting system in the U.S. will change drastically. This
>is true regardless of the impact of EVM2003 and/or the OVC.
>Alan D.
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Oct 31 23:17:03 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 31 2003 - 23:17:07 CST