Re: Bruce O'Dell: An Exit Strategy for Electronic Voting

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 09:00:45AM -0600, Joe Pezzillo wrote:
> 
> Even though there are fundamental technical considerations which  
> should rule out use of electronic vote tallying technology, some of  
> my Information Technology colleagues are still trying hard to salvage  
> it (see, for example, the web site of the research group called  
> ACCURATE).
> 
> When it comes to electronic voting technology, we do not need a  
> better mousetrap ? we need an exit strategy.
> 
> 
> http://www.opednews.com/articles/ 
> opedne_bruce_o__060824_an_exit_strategy_for.htm
> 

This article seems to be entirely about something called electronic
voting systems. Electronic voting technology is a fair rewording,
but electronic vote tallying technology is a muddled rewording, IMHO.

I can envision a system in which a paper ballot is the official record
of each voter's intent, and the collection of all voted ballots is the
controlling part of the official record of the whole election. In such
a system, it seems to me entirely appropriate to use counting
equipment to augment the abilities of human vote counters. This
counting equipment must have mechanical paper handling components, and
the ballots might reasonably be modified to accomodate mechanical
handling. But these are design considerations that have somehow been
lost in the verbal haze.

We should concentrate on ensuring that we have a paper ballot, and
that the paper involved is sturdy enough to survive human handling
during an initial count and a few recounts. Further, the paper ballot
should comply with strict format standards that would allow people to
design counting equipment that will count the votes mechanically.
(Mechanically, is used here in the old fashion sense of 'not human'.)

Other traditional aspects of voting in the USA should also be
maintained:
> The ballot of each voter should be a separate paper, not connect to
the ballot of any other voter in a roll of paper.
> The voter should commit to his vote by placing his ballot in the
ballot box.
> The voter has a fundamental right to vote the ballot as he wishes,
including over voting.

What is to be done with over votes is a matter that should be handled
by the courts and the legislature, not by making it impossible.  (In
my opinion, over voting is a form of spoiling a ballot and is a form
of protest that is protected as a free speech right.)

But what about persons with disabilities and paper ballots?  DRE has
been marketed as a 'one size fits all' solution to the issue of voting
for persons with disabilities. But even a moments reflection leads one
to realize that persons with disabilities generally have different,
distinct disabilities that must be addressed individually.

In my opinion, whatever solutions are invented for persons with
disabilities will likely be a user interface front end to some
computer. Having that computer mark an official paper ballot is a far
easier task than having that computer maintain a secure electronic
tally of the vote.

A machine that marks an official ballot would also address an issue
that voting officials have not yet confronted: What to do with a
person with disabilities who needs to be afforded a provisional
ballot? Does any DRE system have provision for keeping these votes
separate AND secret AND linked to the registration information that is
normally provided on the outside of the Provisional Envelope?

So, I say, don't rail against computers. But do demand a real paper
ballot. And do not forget to demand justice for persons with
disabilities. 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx