Joe, that's certainly a possibility. Plus I'd be happy if the
commercial vendors replaced their central tabulation system with our
open source version. Our objective is to be interoperable.
Best regards,
Arthur
At 10:45 AM -0700 6/10/05, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ================================================================== = The content of this message, with the exception of any external = quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain ==================================================================Received on Thu Jun 30 23:17:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 30 2005 - 23:17:11 CDT