RE: What is Data Model FOR?

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 16:13:26 CDT

At 3:46 PM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Arthur Keller [mailto:arthur@kellers.org]
>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 3:29 PM
>To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>Subject: RE: [voting-project] What is Data Model FOR?
>
>
>At 3:07 PM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>>Well, let's consider the nature of a spoiled ballot. Isn't it a ballot
>>that is invalid because a choice has been made that presents an
>>exception to the rule. We can capture the exception through validity
>>testing before the data is entered and allow the elector to make a
>>valid choice thereby saving the ballot. I think that's a good thing.
>
>Certainly we will do that, and DRE vendors make the same claim. Our
>concept is that voters *can* make mistakes and discover them when the
>review the printed ballot. We *have* to handle that case.

Mark wrote:

>Why wait that long? Why not capture it at the point of entry and provide
>for a correction?

Once the ballot is printed, it is unchangeable and can only be marked
spoiled. Before it is printed, the voter is free to make changes.
There are many reasons why the voter should not be allowed to change
a printed ballot other than by marking it spoiled and getting an
opportunity to vote and print a replacement one.

> >I was thinking it would be more valid in that it faithfully count to
>>contests acurately and it would also represent those ballots that
>>somehow didn't get into the ballot box.
>
>That's one of the criticisms we get from DRE vendors.

Mark wrote:

>Isn't that all the more reason to use and compare multiple canvassing
>methods?

That's why you reconcile at the end of the day at the polling place.

> >Which brings forward another
>>question, "How do we prevent hardcopy ballots from be lost?"
>
>May I suggest you review the discussions we've had already on these
>topics?
>
>I'd like to. Where can I access them?

David has just courteously answered that.

Best regards,
Arthur

>Best regards,
>Arthur
>
>>Mark
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Arthur Keller [mailto:arthur@kellers.org]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 2:00 PM
>>To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>Subject: RE: [voting-project] What is Data Model FOR?
>>
>>
>>Mark,
>>
>>The computer count is NOT more accurate than the paper count. The
>>computer count includes spoiled paper ballots.
>>
>>Please think it through and make suggestions on HOW it should be done.
>
>>We already know that it needs to be done.
>>
>>Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels and getting nowhere.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Arthur
>>
>>At 1:28 PM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>>>Arthur,
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Arthur Keller [mailto:arthur@kellers.org]
>>>Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:13 AM
>>>To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>>Cc: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>>Subject: RE: [voting-project] What is Data Model FOR?
>>>
>>>
>>>At 10:32 AM -0500 4/29/04, Mark Winegar wrote:
>>>>Doug,
>>>>
>>>>Better accuracy is often achieved by eliminating the humor error
>>>>factor.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>--
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-
>>>-
>>>-------
>>>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
>tel
>>>+1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>>
>>
>>--
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>-------
>>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507 tel
>>+1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507 tel
>+1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:17:25 2004

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