1. I concur with Kellen & others that we MUST have a voter
verifiable paper ballot. The Diebold machine controversy in the
Georgia governor election recently should amply exemplify the problem of not
being able to truly verify a contested close
election. (Reference,for example, which you've probably
already seen: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60563,00.html
) As mentioned earlier, some machines, such as Hart
Interactive, can provide a printed receipt of each voter's ballot, which the
voter can verify thru a window, (where a 2D barcode code also be added adjacent
to the ballot receipt). This might be quite sufficient.
2. If we go with scanners (or DRE), then there must be
guarantees by the manufacturer that the machine can handle all main types of
future applications, such as Ranked Voting, for an agreed-upon &
affordable price, where it could be installed in the future.
Thus the scanners would have to produce a digital Ballot Image of each voter's
record, I believe.
3. Can these Scanners give warning
about under-votes and prevent over-votes?
Thanks for letting me
contribute, JCBollinger
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 1:07
PM
Subject: RE: Rock and a hard place
Tom,
Thanks for correcting my error.
How do you (or anyone) respond to the substance of my
suggestion (below)?
That is, Boulder County could buy an optical scanning device (or other
appropriate ballot tabulating machine) capable of tabulating
both hand-marked absentee ballots and hand-marked (or machine-marked)
ballots.
Then, if and when the computer security industry agrees on specs and
technical standards, sometime down the road, BC takes it from
there. NIST, at HAVA request, has barely begun to address this complex
issue.
I've read too many articles, including the Guardian article
earlier this week, to feel remotely comfortable approving any system not
based on a voter verifiable paper ballot. No independent recount,
it's not a fair election, period.
The core issue with these electronic voting systems is security, but
the Committee isn't competent to judge that issue.
Finally, what are all various voting system
options open to Boulder County? Is there a study that
lists the various options and their advantages and disadvantages? If
there isn't shouldn't there be one, if not by Boulder County then by the
State, or some other competent authority?
Is the choice limited to these four electronic
voting vendors? Is the scenario I parrot from Kolwicz and others an
option? If not, why not?
Thanks.
kell
"Halicki, Tom"
<thalicki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kell:
Boulder County does not have an optical scan
system. The punch card system used card readers to tally
votes.
-----Original
Message-----
From: kellen carey
[mailto:kcarey636@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003
11:42 AM
To: Alan; Boulder Computer Voting
Subject: Re:
Rock and a hard place
Alan,
This is a complicated subject. Few people are informed well
enough to make a decision. There are a whole range of intertwined
electoral and technical issues, and the more a I read/learn, the more
layers of complexity I see.
I suggest we be cautious.
Therefore, I suggest for Boulder County what Al Kolwicz of
CAMBER is suggesting:
1. In the short term (i.e. 2004, possibly 2005), we should opt
for hand-marked paper ballots, preferably identical to the absentee
mailed ballots, all read by the same optical scanning devices Boulder
County already owns and has been using for years.
2. That buys some time to acquire in the future computer/voter
interface machines (whether touchscreen or other) capable of multiple
ballots, multiple languages, second chance voting, a voter verifiable
paper ballot, and audio capability for the one ADA-compliant machine
mandated per precinct by HAVA.
3. There should be NO digital balloting at all unlessl all
technical security and privacy issues have been thoroughly
hashed out to the satisfaction of a whole range of independent testers and
experts. Establishing the specifications, testing, reviews, etc.,
will almost certainly take several years.
kell
Alan <Alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ok,
for everyone that attended the meetings in Boulder regarding
the
Electronic Voting machines currently being considered for Boulder
county
(and for others that are generally informed on the subject),
what is your
favorite system?
I personally feel that some of
the sales people were bold face lying in
their presentations and some
were deliberately misleading in their answers
to certain questions.
There are to many security concerns and proprietary
software issues
with any of the systems. This decision is like which flavor
of mud do
you like best. If I were to choose today I believe I would still
go
with Advante due to their embracing the voter verifiable paper
ballot.
In many ways I am suspicious of the whole effort to use
DRE's in the voting
process. I personally feel that we should mark a
paper ballot and then
place it in the "v! ote reader" scanner. When
the display verifies that the
ballot scan reflects the voters
intentions then the ballot is transfer to
the ballot box. That way we
have a check and balances system and paper
ballots for a
recount.
What are your thoughts.
Alan
Do you Yahoo!?
The
New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
search
Do you Yahoo!?
The
New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
search
|