I was hoping not to get too bogged down in the ballot vs. record definition in this thread, only because none of the bills actually use the phrase "voter-verified paper ballot" and if the "record" is going to be the official vote count, I would think this should suffice. There are those here who believe that the word "ballot" automatically implies hand counting and hence makes DREs illegal. I don't know if this is your interpretation, but it does confuse the discussion at times.
Even Ensign's VIVA bill only says "paper version of the voter's ballot" and "individual permanent paper record for each ballot" which clearly allows other ballot formats to be counted initially.
The issues I'm seeing in reading these bills is that they vary in their auditing requirements (if any), there security requirements for the machines (if any), who decides what do to in the event a discrepancy is found, etc.
If we can't verify the source code in real time, even if it's been made public, and we can't design a system with iron clad security, including the tabulators -- see my thread about Rush Holt's bill <
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x337682> --
then we need to think about how to audit enough voter-verified paper records to ensure that the count is at least accurate enough to correctly decide the winner of the election. I call this the Sledge Hammer approach because rather than trying to finesse the design, authenticate the code, etc. (the Geek approach) it basically says the heck with it! We don't trust this stuff and we never will, so we might as well do as many hand counts as necessary to be certain that the machine count is accurate enough to pick the winner.
Now, does there need to be additional legislation (beyond the VVPB requirement) to ensure that this can be done? Should there be a statistical algorithm used to go beyond the initial mandatory random 2 or 3 percent audit (if any)? Would a court have to decide to allow these audits as part of an election challenge, or can they be done by anyone willing to pay for them, right there on election night? Should we start setting up some funds to be used especially for this purpose (i.e., Help America Recount, a DNC GELAC Fund, etc)?
Keep in mind that the Kerry campaign could have done this in Ohio had they been less naive, more computer literate, or whatever. I just don't want there to be any more Ohios.
Therefore, I think we need a strategy that can work given a simple requirement for a VVPB (or a rose by any other name). This may be all we are able to get into law, unless Land Shark is successful.
The Geek approach is a bit too much to ask for various reasons, although I get the feeling that Hillary Clinton might like it based on her comments about the elections in India on Jan. 6. But if we can't thread the needle, why not use the Sledge Hammer?