RE: What is Data Model FOR?

From: Mark Winegar <mwinegar_at_mtmc_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 13:28:15 CDT


Yes, there has to be a better process of managing the paper ballots
because it appears that the computer count is more accurate than the
paper count. In what ways can the paper count be improved?

Local reconciliation probably isn't a bad thing.


-----Original Message-----
From: Arthur Keller []
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [voting-project] What is Data Model FOR?

At 10:32 AM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>Better accuracy is often achieved by eliminating the humor error
>In both scenarios discussed below there are opportunities for the human

>error factor to contaminate the canvassing. We can improve the whole
>process by having two distinct canvassing processes; one based on the
>voter's computer input and the other based on paper ballots. I believe
>the comparison of these distinct data sets will help detect, and
>prevent, tampering.
>Mark Winegar

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. There can
be discrepancies between paper and electronic, such as spoiled
ballots. Or ballots never deposited in the ballot box. Unless you
reconcile as locally as feasible, it's hard to effectively reconcile
in larger contexts. And when you expect there to be discrepancies
(spoiled ballots), you have to drill down anyway.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507 tel
+1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= 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 23:17:23 2004

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