Why bother? Any computer system usually requires intense effort to
get it working - with elections you'd be in the teething trouble
stage permanently.
I can't think of anything worse. It's overdependence on technology -
we've got it so we have to use it.
Even when it's slower, less reliable and vulnerable. Save it for the
count!
Reminds of that old joke about NASA spending squillions designing a
pen that would write in weightless vaccuum - while the Russians just
used a pencil.
People mark papers and people count them and, here's the real key -
the counters are employed by an utterly independent federal authority
which does nothing but organise and moderate elections.
Ours is the Australian Electoral Commission. They are utterly above
reproach - don't think I've ever heard a word against them.
They run extremely complex elections rather well, even accommodating
local variations (like Tamania's weird proportional system).
They do the state elections as well. Governments have to use them -
it's the law.
They have education staff who come to schools and run mock elections
with guest lessons.
They even hire out their services to neighboring governments and non-
government organisations.
I'm sure that they'd be happy to sort you lot out, for a reasonable fee.
No machines required.
Elections 'R Us. :-)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27/08/2007, at 4:35 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
==============================================
|