RE: Wait just a friggin' minute!

["AlKolwicz" <AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick,

We are not opposed to vote marking machines.  These machines warn voters of
under votes, prevent over votes, provide disabled voters with a way to vote
in private, AND print the voter's votes on a paper ballot that the voter can
verify before casting.

These devices provide voter verifiable ballots.  Paper ballots provide a way
to verify vote counting.  In addition, paper ballot tracking systems, using
serialized removable ballot stubs and poll books, provide a way to audit
every ballot and every voter -- a way to "balance" each election.

Vote marking machines might look and feel like a DRE, but have additional
hardware -- a scanner and page printer.  By eliminating the digital ballot,
the vote marking machine is trustworthy.  If the machine makes an error, the
only place that the error can affect results is any error printed on the
paper ballot.  Since the paper ballot is verifiable by the voter, the error
is detectable.

Because of their reliance on a digital ballot, we think that DRE's cannot
meet fundamental verifiability and auditing requirements.  

Al



-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Bernstein [mailto:nicholas.bernstein@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:16 PM
To: AlKolwicz
Cc: 'Evan Daniel Ravitz'; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Wait just a friggin' minute!

OK,
I need to throw in my two cents here. My understanding is that this 
group is devoted to promoting verifiable voting, NOT to the elminination 
of DREs. I can understand the objections to the currently available DREs 
with or without paper audit trails, but I cannot understand nor endorse 
an effort to outlaw DREs altogether.

There are two separate issues here. One is ensuring that the languange 
in this bill is appropriate and the other is casting a critical eye on 
any technology that comes down the pipe, whether that is DRE technology 
or ballot marking technology. We don't need--and I don't want--language 
in the bill that ENFORCES the use of an all paper system. My ideal 
solution would be reliable open-source DRE code with a paper receipt. 
(And I don't want to hear all the whining about reliable code not being 
a possibility. It is).  Leaving languange in that allows a DRE system 
doesn't mandate its use, and is the only forward thinking thing to do.

Nick

AlKolwicz wrote:

>E
>My sense is that we MUST get the digital ballot quashed and the paper
ballot
>adopted.  If we fail to do so now, more equipment will be purchased and our
>likelihood of success in the future is lessened.
>
>If we fail to fix the recount language, I think that we can get it repaired
>later.  If we fail to eliminate "paper audit trails" this year, we'll be
>stuck with non-trustworthy elections for a long long time.
>
>Al
>  
>