Re: What is Data Model FOR?

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 11:27:03 CDT

On Apr 29, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Arthur Keller wrote:

> At 10:32 AM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:

> Actually, our approach is to reconcile the paper and electronic
> as early as feasible after the polls close. Once you've done that,
> distinct canvassing systems compounds the discrepancies.

The problem is that there must always be a distinct canvassing
system to combine the results from hundreds of precincts. Clerical
errors abound in this system, with typical errors ranging from the
transposition of digits in a number by human clerks to the omission
of electronic data for entire precincts.

It doesn't matter how that data is delivered, manually or
electronically,
there can be errors in this process, so it needs checking.

Indeed, reconciliation of paper and electronic records at the precinct
is useful, but you then have to check the correct processing of the
data up the tree from the precinct to the final county wide and
state wide canvass of the election. At each step up this canvassing
tree, you ought to reconcile again in order to make sure that the
final result really does reflect the aggregate of all the local
results, because at each step, there are new opportunities to introduce
discrepancies.

                        Doug Jones
                        jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:22 2004

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