Just PRINT the ballot
Just PRINT the ballot
Posted Sep 13, 2002 17:59 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224)In reply to: Just PRINT the ballot by gswoods
Parent article: Where free software should be required by law
What I meant, which I apparently didn't communicate properly,
is that you print the ballot in both HUMAN and MANCHINE readable
forms, on the same PAGE, one corresponding to the other. The
human form would be OCR capable, but that's not a requirement.
The Human looks at the human part of it and if it looks right,
drops it into a slot right next to the electronic voting machine.
Or they even walk to a seperate ballot box and drop it in - that's
no different than they do now. This turns the computer into a
glorified display engine, which is what it's good at.
If there is any question about the validity of election, these
PAPER ballots are the "official" record. They can be easily run
through a machine reader, which can both tally the vote as well
as try to OCR it and verify the human and machine readable parts
are the same, and maybe put up a copy of the human readable part
on the screen (derived from the machine part) for a HUMAN to verify
that what the machine thinks is on the page is really what the
human saw, etc, etc, etc. If there are *any* descrepencies,
then you know there's a problem with the balloting machines,
and then you hunt down the people responsible for it and convict
them of election fraud.
This is NOT a hard problem. There are *simple* solutions to
all these, and Open Source is not necessarily one of them. I
personally think Open Source would be the *best* way to do it,
but I can see private companies doing it as well and trying to
make money at it.
It's not like the hardware requirements are terribly difficult
- a touch screen and a low end PC platform (regular old Pentium
is probably more than enough) running linux plus some GUI display.
The only hard part is figuring out a cheap, readable printer - you
need a printer that preferably doesn't need ink at all, so you just
have to keep it supplied with paper. Thermal printers are a
possibilty, but their output had traditionally been very poor.
Maybe they've improved. If you have to add ink, then set it up
so that you add ink and paper at the same time, in a simple drop
in package.
But these are all just details. The reason this is failing is
because the idiot politicians are NOT LISTENING to the ENGINEERS.
Instead they are listening to big companies who stand to make
$millions on this, and of COURSE are going to be biased. DOH!
Pete Flugstad
Posted Sep 15, 2002 1:44 UTC (Sun)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link]
*My* personal approach was, indeed, to separate the ballot *validation* from the accelerated electronic *counting* by...
Numbering the races, lettering the candidates (1A - Janet Reno, 1B - Bill McBride), etc, on the voting screen, and then, once the ballot is accepted, *print it out on Polaroid SX-70 film, in OCR font, without the candidate names*, show the voter a screen *with both codes and candidate names*, and then let them compare and approve.
Once they do, they drop the film in a scanner at the table, and it adds the vote to the totals, making a noise and updating a ballot totalizer counter. It then drops into a locked box, with a slot too small to reach into. Say, an ammo box with a replacement cover.
At the end of the night, you plug each counter into a phone line box, and like ET, it phones home.
Simple, reasonably hard to screw with -- it even gives you *something to recount* (say it with me now: "a vote is a physical object") -- and the only *problem* with it is Sequoia Votings Systems will only make about 1/3 as much money.
But who knows, maybe it's just me.
Indeed, Pete. Apparently, gswoods hasn't ever voted -- you've *always* walked away from the booth with a readable ballot (although perhaps you had to hold it up to a voting machine to read it, but...
Just PRINT the ballot