Re: Move to North Dakota if you really want a secret ballot, or ....

At 2:39 PM -0700 8/10/04, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>Two considerations:
>
>1) Many EVM vendors market registration products;
>2) Often this is because an RFP will not consider a bid without
>integration to registration databases (or revamping/retooling
>thereof).
>
>I would think registration interfaces at the least and (moreso) having
>something to integrate into a bid if called for in an RFP/RFB, would
>be appropriate for the UCVS/OVC projects.

Yes that certainly makes sense. We could expand our work to include
that portion. But we have not proposed that yet. Again, we want to
implement what the rules are, and not to dramatically change them.

Best regards,
Arthur

>Please correct me if I'm wacky, Joe
>
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:08:54 -0700 (PDT), Edmund R. Kennedy
><ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alan:
>>
>> Yes Alan, I agree that voter registration is an important
>>issue with problems that a group like this could solve fairly
>>easily as it just basically a database problem. Given the
>>reacation you've gotten so far, my follow on suggestion would be
>>for you to maybe crank up another organization, the Voter
>>Registration Consortium (VRC) or perhaps Voter Registration
>>Technology Consortium (VRTC).
>>
>> Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan Dechert <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Steve--haven't heard from you in a while
>>
>> I think it is essential to reason about the whole process of voting. Making
>> the software for the voting machine is important, but, imo, there's a lot
>> more we have to think about assuming we're interested in transitioning to
>> the best voting system possible (where "voting system" does not equal
>> "voting machine").
>>
>> Alan D.
>>
>> > I think that this is totally off-topic. I thought you were going to
>> > build a voting machine that would be able to comply with the election
>> > laws of each of the 50 states (plus DC and the territories), and lobby
>> > to change any laws that would prevent certification of such a machine.
>> > And I thought that the purpose of this list was to help facilitate that
>> > goal. I don't see how a discussion such as the above advances the
>> > cause; it seem! s a diversion of energy from this list's purpose.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> 10777 Bendigo Cove
>> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>>
>> Amendment 1 to the US Constitution
>>
>> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>>religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging
>>the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people
>>peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the
>>redress of grievances."
>
>
>--
>Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
>http://pobox.com/~joehall/
>blog: http://pobox.com/~joehall/nqb2/

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================