On Tuesday 16 August 2005 08:51, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
> The intent of HAVA, IMHO, is to get rid of the
> Votamatic punch card system and similar.
That's fine, but your previous statement is exceedingly imprecise
in an important way. There are reliable punch-card voting
systems--those that use a card punch to cuts rectangular holes
in the cards, rather than a pin to push out a prescored circular
chad. IBM card punches were engineered to have less than one
incorrect punch in a billion.
> Got to get
> back to work. Is anyone seriously proposing that
> we use a punch card system?
True punch-card systems would not have the hanging chad problem,
but they cannot easily be verified by the voter.
> Also, as Doug pointed
> out, the actual error for op-scan is under 1% which is
> pretty darn good.
Yes, optical scan has long been known to be the best
voter-verifiable hard-copy technology.
> Thanks, Ed Kennedy
>
> --- Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/05, Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Hello:
> > >
> > > Punch card systems are now illegal.
Unlikely, but irrelevant. The public can't tell the difference
between card punches and push-out pins.
-- Edward Cherlin Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy and more "A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!" --Alice in Wonderland http://cherlin.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ OVC discuss mailing lists Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org ================================================================== = The content of this message, with the exception of any external = quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain ==================================================================Received on Wed Aug 31 23:17:26 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:44:12 CDT