I am no expert, but that might work, if you could guarantee no
tampering with the optical reader and resisting the pressure for
fast, TV reportable results with a central hookup of optical readers
to a central compiler. Maybe a certified hand count with an optical
reader check? There would be some mischief possible in variances
between layout of the touch screen and the paper ballot that could
cause enough confusion for people not to check whether the ballot
represents the choices made on the screen.
You are probably able to think of more ways to break it than I can. I
am a babe in the woods in places like eBay. :~)
I was surprised when Andrew said that Australia used a paper ballot.
Evidently Canada does as well. Since voting is a local process I
wonder why the need for expensive hardware and software except as a
means to provide instantaneous results to provide drama on
television. Certainly the size of the population would have nothing
to do with it since final results would be a few sums of sums.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Aug 26, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I've always thought the best system would be a hybrid. Computer
> controlled touch screen for easy presentation, selection and
> correction
> (if necessary) of your choices. But the computer would be stand-alone
> and not connected in any way to any network. It would print out a
> human
> readable paper form as the ballot. The paper form would be counted
> by a
> separate optical reader. No manual labor, paper ballots for safety
> and
> recounts.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|