Re: Outline of NSF Proposal to Digital Government initiative

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 10:16:36 CDT

Hello Teresa:

Yes Teresa, San Diego County is the poster child for
why Diebold is a nightmare. Thanks for the tip.

Ed Kennedy

--- Teresa Hommel <tahommel@earthlink.net> wrote:

> FYI, in obtaining information about "undervotes" be
> sure to get the
> precise definition of "undervote" that pertains to
> that equipment and
> that jurisdiction. I believe that San Diego uses
> Diebold equipment.
>
> >From http://www.wheresthepaper.org/keydocs.html
>
> 21. What is an undervote? Most people think that an
> undervote is a race
> for which no vote is cast. However, Diebold uses a
> different definition,
> which allows their undervote rate to be much lower.
>
> When Diebold counts undervotes, they only count
> races in which voters
> can select multiple candidates to fill multiple
> offices, and then only
> if the voter failed to select the maximum number of
> candidates allowed.
> Using this definition, a race for President would
> never have undervotes.
> Diebold refers to an unrecorded choice in
> such a race as a "blank vote" -- not an "undervote."
>
> So if someone claims that DREs have fewer
> "undervotes" than other
> systems, this may mean nothing. What should be asked
> is whether they
> mean "undervotes" or "blank votes", since the
> terminology may not be
> standard.
>
> 1. From GEMS User Guide Revision 3, Version 1.17.15;
> July 3, 2001, Glossary:
> "Undervoted Race: A race with less candidates
> selected than the number
> to vote for; cannot be a vote for 1 race."
>
> 2. Op cit. Pg. 2-61 in the AccuVote-OS (Op Scan)
> Options section:
> "Undervotes apply only to races with a number to
> vote for greater than 1
> - an unvoted race with number to vote for 1 is
> considered blank voted."
>
> 3. From Diebold Election Systems Election Support
> Guide, Revision 1.0,
> Oct. 21, 2002: Section 5 "Election Day"
> [Applies to both OS and TS (Touch Screen/DRE)]
> "Remember that 'undervoting' in industry is
> generally considered to be
> no candidate selection or less candidates selected
> than the number to
> vote for, while we consider undervoting to be the
> latter only."
>
>
>
>
> Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>
> >Hello Arthur:
> >
> >I would be happy to try and get data from the San
> >Diego County Registrar of Voters. No, I do not
> need
> >to be paid although I would like out of pocket
> costs
> >such as copying reimbursed. Please let me know
> when
> >you have worked out a schedule and a list of
> >questions. I have been working on a list of
> questions
> >with Kathy Dopp for uscountvotes.org and I will try
> >and forward this information to you if she is not
> able
> >to participate.
> >
> >However, her list (with my additions) appear to
> >include a by precinct listing of:
> >
> >1. Votes by candidate or initiative.
> >2. Number of people attemting to vote (provisional
> >ballots)
> >3. Over/under votes
> >4. I would assume spoiled ballots
> >5. Voting technology used (including age of
> >equipment)
> >6. Problems reported.
> >
> >I can see by your basic proposal that this
> information
> >may be generally tangential to your line of inquiry
> >except for items 5 and 6. Items 1-4 may be
> suitable
> >for studying outcomes.
> >
> >
> >Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy, PE
> >
> >--- Arthur Keller <voting@kellers.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dear Friends,
> >>
> >>There is an opportunity to apply for funding to
> NSF
> >>for the Digital
> >>Government initiative under NSF 05-551.
> >>
> >>I am planning to write such a proposal. Your
> >>feedback is welcome.
> >>It's due Thursday, May 5th.
> >>
> >>Vote: Voting Operations Technology Evaluation
> >>
> >>1. Analysis of Voting System equipment processes
> >>(e.g., Joe Hall's
> >>work on Activity Model for Sequoia AVC Edge w/
> >>VVPAT)
> >>* Outcome: Activity Model for various voting
> systems
> >>2. Analysis of Voting System procedures manuals
> >>3. Analysis of "county" processes (e.g., working
> >>with election
> >>officials) for precinct-based and central
> operations
> >>* Outcome of 2 and 3: Activity Models, Threat
> >>Analyses, Best
> >>Practices document, Election Rules database)
> >>
> >>Scope includes polling place voting systems,
> >>absentee ballots,
> >>provisional ballots, central ("county") canvassing
> >>
> >>Please let me know if you would like to
> collaborate
> >>on this proposal
> >>and, if funded, on the effort (as an paid or
> unpaid
> >>contributor)
> >>
> >>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
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>OVC discuss mailing lists
> >>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> >>arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
858-578-8842
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
I blog now and then at:  <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT