RE: What is Data Model FOR?

From: Mark Winegar <mwinegar_at_mtmc_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 13:36:43 CDT

Agreed. However, we need to identify and eliminate the root causes of
the anomalies. This will probably require many revisions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas W. Jones [mailto:jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: What is Data Model FOR?

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
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
= 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