Re: Nevada paper trails work without a hitch

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Sat Sep 25 2004 - 11:45:11 CDT


> one interesting point: what happens if the records disagree? well
> right now in nevada the laws are still the old laws (paper trails were
> a gift from Dean Heller the SOS, not the legislature). So that means
> the electronic ballot is THE ballot. But this could change now that
> there have been no problems.
This ambiguity is a bit of a problem. They're saying it's the ballot while
most voters never look at it. This is not a "voter verified paper
ballot"--maybe a voter verifiable paper record.

Dan Tokaji posted Conny McCormack's comments on his blog SEP 16.

McCormack confirms what I've suspected all along with the ballot-under-glass
approach: "As other observers of both early voting and Nevada's election day
have indicated, only a few voters (10-20%) looked at the printer...."

Whatever the exact percentage, I predict it will go down over time. It's
very likely to always match the voters selections so voters will eventually
be trained to trust the machine and not look at the printout.

The big problem with DREs is over time, like 5 to 10 years from now. If
they become prevalent and voters learn to trust them, look out. The
printers attached to the Sequoia machines will likely be removed (or not
replaced) at some point because officials will say "we've never found a
discrepancy. It's an extra expense we don't need. Voters don't look at
them anyway." If DREs become prevalent with the training wheels removed,
the opportunity for insiders to rig elections will be ripe.

One of the main differences with the OVC approach is that voters will look
at the printout. Voters take the printout and put it in the ballot box
understanding that it's the actually act of casting a ballot.

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 Thu Sep 30 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 23:17:11 CDT