[Tfug] Any SQL gurus out there?

[Jim March]

On 10/26/07, Robert Hunter <hunter at tfug.org> wrote:
>
> Yes, this is a great idea.  Independent and redundant verification is
> probably the only acceptable solution when it comes to electronic
> voting.  Democracy should always be completely transparent, or it is
> not democracy at all.
>
> --
> Rob

Note that there's a bunch of ways of getting there.  One option: take
a standard scanner and put a camera pointed straight down over the
input hopper.

Or "siamese" two scanners together, one a dumb bitmap scanner and
another set up to actually read votes - with a physical connection
between but no electrical/data connection (run by two different
shrimpy computers).  The one tied to the bitmap scanner produces the
CDs/DVDs/etc.

The reason for these kludges is, under Federal law, the voting machine
that scans the ballot is supposed to interpret it for "overvotes" -
somebody voting for two candidates at once - and give the voter a
chance to correct.  Any voting system paid for (at least in part) in
Fed money has to have this feature.  So a "totally dumb scanner
station" is impossible, but a siamese "halfbreed" is still possible.

Jim