Re: Executive Summary of Proposal to California Secretary of State

This may not be germaine, but might UCTS also be attractive to some
jurisdictions as a redundant tabulation or auditing mechanism? That
is, in addition to buying equipment from the vendor, might it not make
sense for some jurisdictions to have multiple independent tabulators
and see if they come up with the same results? (of course, only a
subset would be audited with UCTS or you'd be counting twice... which
I like but eleciton officials wont).

That is, might it not also be appropriate to market UCTS in the
proposal as 1) a cross-vendor tabulator architecture and 2) an
auditing mechanism such that you should get the same results from the
proprietary tabulator and UCTS.

Just a thought, ... this multiple-modality of UCTS might raise the
attractiveness to the State, Joe

On 6/9/05, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:
> For your information.
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>
>
>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
<http://pobox.com/~joehall/>
blog: <http://josephhall.org/nqb2/>
This email is written in [markdown][]; an easily-readable and
parseable text format.
[markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
_______________________________________________
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    
==================================================================