Reply #131: Sure, that would be great.

[eomer]

What I want is a system where I can observe (meaningfully) the count in my own precinct and then see the total for my precinct added correctly into the total at the state level.

H. R. 6200 would accomplish that, although it may need some details filled in to avoid certain problems. For example, I think it needs to state that early voting is not allowed for a Presidential election because early voting would destroy my ability to observe the whole process and be sure of it. Absentee ballots would remain problematic and of course we can't and don't want to prohibit them. But we are caught between two competing benefits here -- prohibiting absentees except in the case of real need would improve my ability to observe a large enough share of the vote to (usually) be sure of the result but on the other hand allowing "no excuse" absentees would improve turnout.

But even though the HCPB option is my favorite, and I think that H. R. 6200 is a great idea for overcoming the ballot complexity problem with hand counts, I don't go so far as to say that it is the only solution I would find acceptable. If there is some other system that can deliver the transparency that I want then I would be satisfied with it. I respect your position that you will only be satisfied with HCPB, I just don't go that far myself.

I still believe that opscan together with a citizen option to hand count whatever races they want would also work. It would depend on citizens organizing and participating in large enough numbers. Or instead of citizen counts you could have election workers hand count some randomly-selected precincts as in Holt. Or better yet, provide for both types of hand counts.

DREs that produce a VVPB may possibly be a way of gaining transparency but that remains to be seen. I think it will be difficult but I don't rule it out until I see a specific design. Or maybe DREs can be turned into mere ballot marking devices. A voter can use a touchscreen as many times as she wishes and then can review and deposit the resulting printed ballot into a ballot box. The paper ballot produced by the touchscreen would be designed to be read by a person, by a portable scan/audio device for disabled use, and by a scanner for counting purposes. Then you need a hand count component just like I described above for opscan since this is a variation on opscan.

The bottom line of my position, which hasn't changed since I first joined into these discussions here, is that I will not trust any computer. So any system must allow me to take the computer out and see the count directly with my own eyes or else I will not agree that it is transparent.

I don't have a beef with anyone who advocates the use of technology so long as the party doing the proposing will embrace the concept that computers cannot and must not be trusted. At whatever future time that party puts forward a specific system design then I will look at it and will denounce it if it doesn't allow me to observe the entire process of casting and counting votes in a way that is uncorrupted by the use of computers.