Re: Left off the ballot?

From: David Jefferson <d_jefferson_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Apr 15 2004 - 19:37:18 CDT

This is almost correct. There were actually only 8 counties
involved, covering all kinds of DREs used in CA (but not
covering all of the counties that use DREs). There were a few
more "discrepencies" than four that had to be investigated
because there were also some errors in the scripts themselves
that got resolved in ad hoc ways by the test voters, as well as
human errors in executing the scripts. But all discrepencies
were resolved by appeal to the videotape; no evidence of
software problems in any of the machines was found in these

My understanding is that the full report will be released in
less than a week, before the April 21-22 hearings of the VSP
Panel in Sacramento. All that is going on now with the report
is wordsmithing.


--- Steve Chessin <> wrote:
> I witnessed the parallel monitoring (as it was called here)
> that was
> performed in Santa Clara County as part of the Secretary of
> State's
> mandated parallel monitoring program.
> They tested two machines on election day (March 2nd, 2004).
> There were
> two testers and a videographer for each machine. The screens
> were
> videotaped continuously. Each pair of testers had a script
> book
> (looseleaf binder) and a clock. At the time indicated by the
> script
> page, the page was removed from the book, held up in front of
> the
> screen so that the video camera could capture it, a voter card
> activated according to the script (it was a primary election,
> so the
> scripted party had to be selected) and inserted into the
> machine, the
> script voted (one tester touching the screen and the other
> tester
> observing), the vote cast, and the page returned to the book.
> They did this in I think 18 counties, so that each type of DRE
> in use
> was covered at least once. I'm still waiting for the official
> report
> to be released (it was supposed to be released March 30th). I
> heard
> that when they compared each machine's totals to the scripted
> results,
> there were four discrepencies. All were apparently resolved
> by
> reviewing the videotapes, where data entry mistakes were
> discovered.
> (Even with one person watching another enter the data,
> mistakes
> can happen.)
> --Steve (Santa Clara County, California)
> >From Thu Apr 15 14:30:59 2004
> >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: David Jefferson <>
> >Subject: Re: [voting-project] Left off the ballot?
> >To:
> >
> >Excellent idea. This changes my view of parallel testing,
> which
> >heretofore I had thought of as primarily a stopgap measure to
> be
> >dispensed with when VVPAT becomes available. But these new
> >ballot misrpresentation hacks make it clear, now that you
> >mention it, that parallel testing must be a permanent feature
> of
> >electronic voting, and that the parallel testers must check
> not
> >just that votes are recorded as cast by the fake voters, but
> >that the ballots are rendered on the screen completely and
> >correctly.
> >
> >David
> >
> >> Neat. All of these hacks that involve mis-presentation of
> the
> >> ballot are best tested for using parallel testing, pulling
> >> randomly selected machines from the polling places as the
> >> polls
> >> are opened and spending the day asking real voters to help
> >> test
> >> those machines by voting test ballots on them. At the
> close
> >> of
> >> polls, those test machines are closed just like the others,
> >> but
> >> their vote records are kept carefully segregated -- they're
> >> not
> >> real votes, but they're part of the audit record of the
> >> election.
> >> Voters voting test ballots on these machines have no
> privacy,
> >> so
> >> these machines are tested without a booth, and with
> auditors
> >> observing the selections made so they can be compared with
> the
> >> vote records printed.
> >>
> >> Doug Jones
> >>
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Apr 30 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2004 - 23:17:29 CDT