[E-voting] Vincent Browne show

Owen Connolly ojc at networkarchitects.ie
Fri Feb 27 11:21:06 GMT 2004


On Feb 27, 2004 12:19 AM, Aengus Lawlor <AengusL at eircom.net> wrote:
> It would be far more efficient to match the paper ballots in each box
> against the 400 or 500 electronic votes in the machine, rather than doing a
> full match across the whole constituency, but that's probably not likely to
> happen.

Would it not be simply more efficient to use a double roll system like a cash register receipt system?
i.e. One roll prints and cuts for a "receipt" of your vote, the other prints continuously.  The continuous roll's last transaction (your vote.) is visible through a window, when you are satisfied that it is correct, you press a button and the other roll prints out your receipt. Meanwhile the continuous roll winds on so it is not visible to the next user.  

This has the advantage that for rechecks and queries the continuous roll can simply be run through a scanner for an accurate tally.

If you notice an error in the way the system has recorded your vote, the machine must be withdrawn from use and secured for a full audit/investigation.

However,  no VVAT system is going to be adequate unless the software is available for peer review, as it is perfectly possible print one thing while recording the other.


Cheers,



ojc

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Owen J Connolly
Technical Director
http://www.networkarchitects.ie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Owen Connolly.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 469 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.stdlib.net/pipermail/e-voting/attachments/20040227/493e3cc7/OwenConnolly.bin


More information about the E-voting mailing list