On Monday 12 July 2004 10:27 am, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
> No... the OVC has a piece of paper outputted (and verified) at the
> time to vote is cast... this is the official record of the vote... the
> electronic records in the OVC system are for reconcilliation (someone
> correct me if I'm wrong). -Joe
Yes, I'm aware of the OVC's scheme, and your description of the scheme looks
correct. I was commenting on the way Douglas worded his definition of a DRE.
On Monday 12 July 2004 11:14 am, Douglas W. Jones wrote:
> OK, time to refine my definition:
>
> The important thing is that the records of votes are stored
> electronically for some interval before they are printed or
> otherwise converted to durable human-readable records, and
> as a result, the voter never has a chance to inspect or
> approve the human-readable record of his or her vote.
How about this instead:
"The important thing is that the records of votes are stored electronically
for some interval before they are printed or otherwise converted to durable
human-readable records IN SUCH A MANNER THAT the voter never has a chance to
inspect or approve the human-readable record of his or her vote."
The OVC system in fact stores the votes electronically for some interval
before they are printed; your wording makes it seem like that in itself is
inherently bad. I think the real point is that the voter never gets to
inspect & verify their piece of the audit trail in paper form. Also, as Joe
points out, the OVC paper *is* the legal ballot; in a DRE the electronic copy
is the legal ballot.
Nathan
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:05 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT