Okay, thanks
for the numbers. I have polled some folks in the office, and it appears
that the consensus is that anyone capable of entering a two digit code is
equally capable of entering a six digit code. Basically, either the poll
workers are capable of using a telephone and hand calculator, or they're
not. Hopefully most of them are.
The codes
themselves are self-checking. If the operator mis-enters the code printed
on the affidavit, then the spyrus unit will reject it. With a six digits,
there are 1,000,000 possible codes they can enter. 9,999,000 of these
codes will be invalid. I'll post a list of codes once we have the coding
scheme worked out. Of course the valid codes would be
pre-printed on the pad of affidavits.
No, you just need a standard pad. Each polling station puts their set of affidavits with the ballots into a big envelope (or whatever) with a vote center label. On the back end back at election central, the provisional ballots are processed by vote center. GEMS knows what vote center the ballots came from, and can use that information plus the standard code to find the exact ballot and voter.
You bring up
two issues here.
First is the
barcode concept. The coding scheme makes it very difficult (basically
impossible) for poll workers to screw up entering in the number. I have to
have faith that poll workers are capable of operating a hand calculator, or we
are probably going to be in a good deal more trouble on other fronts with the
touch screen. We could in theory hook a bar code reader to the spyrus
unit, but then you are going to have to power it. You couldn't wear the
reader around your neck, like its designed. Basically you add an unwieldy
piece of hardware to the equation for the exceptional voter. It doesn't
make sense.
Your second
point is that the keys are small. Fine. They're small. They're
also cute. That they are really too small to be used by the same gene
pool that were once charged with hand tallying ballot totals I find difficult to
buy.
The very
idea that we could go out and build a better unit than a company dedicated to
building card readers is staggering. The only serious argument I can see
here is that the buttons are too small, and lets face it we are not going to go
out and start manufacturing cards readers because the buttons are too
small. We only have so many personnell that are good with silicone glue as
it is.
I suspect
how well Piedmont/Oakland goes will depend entirely on how good a job you do on
selling them on the concept. If you do not think it will work, I have no
doubt that your customer will concur. In this case, I suggest we
start training Alameda poll workers on booting PCs early.
Ken
|