At 09:39 PM 2/1/2007, Brian Olson wrote: >My current favorite solution for practical elections is hand counted paper >ballots with computer data entry (on common desktop PCs, not special >machines). It would take a person 30-60 seconds to enter a ballot into the >computer.
I've made the following proposal for public elections. The ballot is designed to be scannable with reasonable accuracy. Like the multiple-choice tests that have been optically scored since long before PCs. Each ballot would be coded, in batches as large as a precinct, after being cast, to allow identification of each ballot by precinct and a unique number. The code could be added with a sticker, but it might be better to use a stamp or a printer to add the code. The batches would not be coded excapt in batches large enough, and by appropriate procedures, to make identification of a voter with a ballot impossible. Ballot images would be public information and would be openly accessible. There would be an official scan, the raw images from this would be made available. However, election observers could also scan the ballots or at least obtain images of them. (After the ballots are numbered.) Consider the implications: optical recognition technology is sufficiently ubiquitous that a decent automated analysis of ballots could be made independently by many different means. However, it would also be quite practical for visual counting to be done *of the images*, by anyone; the results could be tabulated in a way that makes controversies about the meaning of a ballot reviewable; this is one reason why the ballots would be coded, so that results of various analyses could quickly and easily be compared. The official results would include not only the total counts, but a ballot-by-ballot determination of what each vote was that was counted. And each ballot that was invalidated, for whatever reason. Essentially, the counting process would take place in public, not only watchable by a few observers, but by anyone interested, at leisure. The "scanners" could simply be fax machines. No special equipment would be necessary. The *analysis* could require special or customized software, but it is quite possible that there are off-the-shelf solutions, that could convert a ballot into a standard text file. I believe that ballots appropriate for this are already being used in places. The "official" scanning and results need not require any new equipment. I've never understood the fuss over new election equipment as being anything other than a boondoggle. Quite simply, hand counting is not difficult enough, and counting is needed infrequently enough, that the kind of spending which has been poured into election equipment is little short of insane. How much per vote is being spent, and how much would it cost to count ballots by hand? There are standard keypunch procedures, developed years ago, for obtaining high accuracy by using multiple operators and comparing the results. With coded ballots, noncontroversial ballots could quickly be identified and attention focused only on controversial ballots, which would normally be a relatively small percentage. What happened in Florida in 2000 was that *every ballot* was counted by a whole group of people, one ballot at a time. I don't believe they did independent batching. Highly inefficient and not verifiable. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
