[E-voting] Question on optical scan

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Margaret McGaley writes:
> As I said, I'm becoming more and more convinced that OpScan is a cleaner
> implementation of VVAT than DRE+printer. If I was going to try to implement
> e-voting, OpScan would be my only choice.

I agree ;)

> With regards to the number recognition problem, I think stickers are the
> answer. With the ballot paper, the voter would be given one sheet of stickers
> with unique numbers from one to the number of candidates running. The glue on
> these stickers would be designed such that they can be removed and restuck
> within the first 30 seconds - 1 minute, but after that removal would rip the
> paper they're stuck to. You could have one scanner in each polling station for
> voters who want to reassure themselves that their ballot will scan correctly.
> 
> Another, more expensive, option would be to have some device which helped
> voters cast their vote, but didn't record the vote electronically. This system
> would have more user interface issues, I feel, and would seem like a waste
> (you can imagine a response that said "why doesn't the printer just save the
> vote"), so I'd be more comfortable advocating the stickers.

yep, that's getting right into punch-card (ie. "butterfly ballot")
territory; and I can see stickers being iffy too -- accidentally
scratching off, sticking ballots together, etc.  Too many moving
parts, so to speak.

I'd have to cast my vote for the "matrix" camp.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFB7rL8MJF5cimLx9ARArLZAJ0TZ+VStHo1vOjlel74tVtpOJvdzgCfSPS2
7X0nFFzkTDSvbZXeK1o3Tcw=
=11De
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----