Miles Fidelman wrote: >Peter Trei wrote: >> All I want is a system which is not more easily screwed around with then >> paper ballots.
>I think it's called OCR Actually, I think its called 'Optical Mark Sense'. >Paper ballots, marked by the voter, not by software, then counted by >software: >- the ballot and the audit document are one and the same - no opportunity >for software to mess with the printed record >- option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through a >different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a >different vendor) >- further option for a manual recount of the original ballots (which are >probably more legible than any machine-printed receipts) >Oh, and by the way, these are the only kind of electronic voting machines >approved, so far, in Mass. >Miles Fidelman Indeed, thats where I live, and the tech we use. It pretty much fits all the requirements. The only complaints I've heard are: * It doesn't randomize the order of candidate presentation. * No provision for dealing with the blind.