This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
Today we refresh our understanding of the standard of care for hosting elections in public spaces such as schools, colleges and universities.
In the United States, polling places can be located in a variety of public and private facilities, not just in public schools. While public schools are commonly used as polling places due to their widespread distribution and accessibility, they are not necessarily the largest proportion of polling places nationwide. The specific locations of polling places can vary by jurisdiction and are determined by local election officials. Other common polling place locations include community centers, churches, libraries, government buildings, and private residences.
The selection of polling places is based on factors like accessibility, convenience, and the need to accommodate a specific number of voters within a given precinct or district. The goal is to ensure that voters have reasonable access to cast their ballots on election day. The use of public schools as polling places is widespread but not universal, and the distribution of polling places across various types of facilities can vary from one region to another.
2024 International Building Code Appendix E: Supplementary Accessibility Requirements
NFPA 730 Guide to Premises Security: 2026 First Draft Report | Consultation closes January 3, 2025
The political party that claims that “democracy is at stake” today’s election is the same political party that seeks to federalize state election laws, pack the Supreme Court, remove the Electoral College, remove US national borders and abolish voter identification will be voting in today’s off-year elections. In other words: it wants to abolish democracy. Its partisans have long since metastasized in education communities where polling places for students, faculty, staff and nearby residents are hosted.
Join us in post-irony America today when we focus only on the safety and environmental condition of these polling places. Where there is closer agreement. Catalogs, titles, chapters, sections and passages that inform best practice on this topic:
Can Voters Detect Malicious Manipulation of Ballot Marking Devices?
International Code Council
International Building Code
A117 Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities
National Fire Protection Association
Premises Security
ASHRAE International
Illumination Engineering Society
Sacramento County: Polling Place and Vote Center Management
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
Can Voters Detect Malicious Manipulation of Ballot Marking Devices?
Matthew Bernhard, et. al
University of Michigan
Abstract: Ballot marking devices (BMDs) allow voters to select candidates on a computer kiosk, which prints a paper ballot that the voter can review before inserting it into a scanner to be tabulated. Unlike paperless voting machines, BMDs provide voters an opportunity to verify an auditable physical record of their choices, and a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions are adopting them for all voters. However, the security of BMDs depends on how reliably voters notice and correct any adversarially induced errors on their printed ballots. In order to measure voters’ error detection abilities, we conducted a large study (N = 241) in a realistic polling place setting using real voting machines that we modified to introduce an error into each printout. Without intervention, only 40% of participants reviewed their printed ballots at all, and only 6.6% told a poll worker something was wrong. We also find that carefully designed interventions can improve verification performance. Verbally instructing voters to review the printouts and providing a written slate of candidates for whom to vote both significantly increased review and reporting rates-although the improvements may not be large enough to provide strong security in close elections, especially when BMDs are used by all voters. Based on these findings, we make several evidence-based recommendations to help better defend BMD-based elections.
IEEE provides this article for public use without charge.
Solidity is a high-level, statically-typed programming language used for developing smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain. Smart contracts are self-executing contracts with the terms of the agreement between buyer and seller written directly into lines of code. Solidity was specifically designed for the Ethereum platform, and it is the most widely used language for creating Ethereum-based smart contracts.
The code below shows how delegated voting can be done so that vote counting is automatic and completely transparent at the same time.
/// @title Voting with delegation.
contract Ballot {
// This declares a new complex type which will
// be used for variables later.
// It will represent a single voter.
struct Voter {
uint weight; // weight is accumulated by delegation
bool voted; // if true, that person already voted
address delegate; // person delegated to
uint vote; // index of the voted proposal
}
// This is a type for a single proposal.
struct Proposal {
bytes32 name; // short name (up to 32 bytes)
uint voteCount; // number of accumulated votes
}
address public chairperson;
// This declares a state variable that
// stores a `Voter` struct for each possible address.
mapping(address => Voter) public voters;
// A dynamically-sized array of `Proposal` structs.
Proposal[] public proposals;
/// Create a new ballot to choose one of `proposalNames`.
constructor(bytes32[] memory proposalNames) {
chairperson = msg.sender;
voters[chairperson].weight = 1;
// For each of the provided proposal names,
// create a new proposal object and add it
// to the end of the array.
for (uint i = 0; i < proposalNames.length; i++) {
// `Proposal({...})` creates a temporary
// Proposal object and `proposals.push(...)`
// appends it to the end of `proposals`.
proposals.push(Proposal({
name: proposalNames[i],
voteCount: 0
}));
}
}
// Give `voter` the right to vote on this ballot.
// May only be called by `chairperson`.
function giveRightToVote(address voter) public {
// If the first argument of `require` evaluates
// to `false`, execution terminates and all
// changes to the state and to Ether balances
// are reverted.
// This used to consume all gas in old EVM versions, but
// not anymore.
// It is often a good idea to use `require` to check if
// functions are called correctly.
// As a second argument, you can also provide an
// explanation about what went wrong.
require(
msg.sender == chairperson,
"Only chairperson can give right to vote."
);
require(
!voters[voter].voted,
"The voter already voted."
);
require(voters[voter].weight == 0);
voters[voter].weight = 1;
}
/// Delegate your vote to the voter `to`.
function delegate(address to) public {
// assigns reference
Voter storage sender = voters[msg.sender];
require(!sender.voted, "You already voted.");
require(to != msg.sender, "Self-delegation is disallowed.");
// Forward the delegation as long as
// `to` also delegated.
// In general, such loops are very dangerous,
// because if they run too long, they might
// need more gas than is available in a block.
// In this case, the delegation will not be executed,
// but in other situations, such loops might
// cause a contract to get "stuck" completely.
while (voters[to].delegate != address(0)) {
to = voters[to].delegate;
// We found a loop in the delegation, not allowed.
require(to != msg.sender, "Found loop in delegation.");
}
// Since `sender` is a reference, this
// modifies `voters[msg.sender].voted`
sender.voted = true;
sender.delegate = to;
Voter storage delegate_ = voters[to];
if (delegate_.voted) {
// If the delegate already voted,
// directly add to the number of votes
proposals[delegate_.vote].voteCount += sender.weight;
} else {
// If the delegate did not vote yet,
// add to her weight.
delegate_.weight += sender.weight;
}
}
/// Give your vote (including votes delegated to you)
/// to proposal `proposals[proposal].name`.
function vote(uint proposal) public {
Voter storage sender = voters[msg.sender];
require(sender.weight != 0, "Has no right to vote");
require(!sender.voted, "Already voted.");
sender.voted = true;
sender.vote = proposal;
// If `proposal` is out of the range of the array,
// this will throw automatically and revert all
// changes.
proposals[proposal].voteCount += sender.weight;
}
/// @dev Computes the winning proposal taking all
/// previous votes into account.
function winningProposal() public view
returns (uint winningProposal_)
{
uint winningVoteCount = 0;
for (uint p = 0; p < proposals.length; p++) {
if (proposals[p].voteCount > winningVoteCount) {
winningVoteCount = proposals[p].voteCount;
winningProposal_ = p;
}
}
}
// Calls winningProposal() function to get the index
// of the winner contained in the proposals array and then
// returns the name of the winner
function winnerName() public view
returns (bytes32 winnerName_)
{
winnerName_ = proposals[winningProposal()].name;
}
}
https://studentwellness.uiowa.edu/recipes/soup-recipes
“The Attributes of the Arts and the Rewards Which Are Accorded Them” | Jean Baptiste Siméon Chardin (1766)
We follow a suite of standards developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) — among them, documents that discover and recommend best financial management practice for not-for-profit organizations common in almost all of the US education industry. At the moment we do not advocate assertively in the FASB suite but we do follow the action as it pertains to the education industry and the activity of the many education industry trade associations whose advocacy activity we do follow.
Current Standardization Projects
Stakeholders in the US education industry are encouraged to communicate directly with the FASB on any issue: Accounting Standards Updates Issued
The FASB suite is a standing item on our colloquia covering education industry accounting practice generally and grant and construction project accounting specifically.
Issue: [17-350]
Category: Finance
Related:
Consortia v. Ad Hoc, v. de Facto standard development platform comparisons
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwB pic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
— USPTO (@uspto) July 13, 2023
Standards Michigan Group, LLC
2723 South State Street | Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
888-746-3670
G-G3SGZY7ZR1 G-G3SGZY7ZR1