Re: Ohio Post Election Audits

From: Ron Olson <ron_at_caseohio_dot_org>
Date: Thu Apr 24 2008 - 06:41:39 CDT



For background, our original white paper recommends that audits include
"challenge precincts" (aka "discretionary precincts", "suspicious
precincts") chosen by 1) losing candidate, 2) audit team, 3) citizens. The
randomly selected precincts would form the bulk of the precincts audited.


I think our group would be interested in considering the strategy you
mentioned. We hope/plan to pass along more detailed recommendations for
November and could include it.


I cannot speak for Sec Brunner, but I did hear some concerns from SoS staff
that allowing requests could open the door for complaints and legal





From: []
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:12 AM
To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list;; Open Voting
Consortium discussion list
Cc: Arthur Keller
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Ohio Post Election Audits


>> Sec Brunner expressed an interest in details of how our recommended
statistical audit would

>> be handled in practice (compared to a Tiered audit).


Do you think Secretary Brunner would be interested in the Targeted Audit
Recount strategy, where

the lion's share of precincts to be audited would be selected by the losing
candidates or nominated

by the public?


Nor yet, O Freedom! close thy lids 
in slumber for thine enemy never 
sleeps. -- The Antiquity of 
Freedom By William Cullen Bryant
-------------- Original message from Arthur Keller <>:
There's a big difference between a demonstration program and a production
quality system that can handle any ballot as well as an election management
system for specifying those ballots and aggregating the results from
The OVC demo illustrates what an open source system can do.  It's not
production quality, nor is it federally certified.
That being said, I'd like to see progressive Secretaries of State, such as
Ohio's Brunner and California's Bowen, get together to jointly commission
the development of a production quality system.
Best regards,
At 5:35 AM -0400 4/22/08, Ron Olson wrote:
I think most (or probably all of us) would like to see proprietary vendor
hardware/software replaced with open source systems.
My understanding is that Sec Brunner will not force voting system changes
unless there are funds to replace them.  Although open source would be less
expensive that vendor systems, they still take time and money.
In addition to a demo, a BOE would probably want
.         some information on how they would implement the ballot printer
.         what kind of PC & printers will work
.         who could support them
.         who else is using them (references)
.         etc
Is information like that available?
From: Brent Turner []
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 3:37 PM
To:;; 'CASE News'; 'OFEN';; 'Ron Olson'
Subject: RE: [SPAM][CASE_OH] Ohio Post Election Audits
Ron-  Great work-    As usual, I hope you are mentioning your support for
open source systems-  Specifically the ballot printer downloadable here-
It is crucial we get the first count correct-   Audits are great, but
obviously without a secure first count we are up against the wall from the
get go-
Also, certification of the systems is not appropriate with proprietary code-
SOS JB knows this-  Please vocalize your support for OS-
Best-  BT
From: [] On Behalf Of
Ron Olson
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:33 AM
To:;; CASE News; OFEN;
Subject: [SPAM][CASE_OH] Ohio Post Election Audits
Members of the SoS's VRI workgroup on Voting Technology (along with some
audit experts) gave a presentation on the Ohio Audit White to Sec Brunner
and staff members on April 17.
The presentation can be found here:
The white paper is here:
Cost estimates based on 2004/2006 are here:
The presentation was well received and questions/discussion continued for
about hou r beyond the presentation.
Sec Brunner expressed an interest in details of how our recommended
statistical audit would be handled in practice (compared to a Tiered audit).
We expect to continue working on recommendations for November audits,
possibly including recommendations for
.         procedures for a statistical method for selecting precincts
.         the Observer Directive to make sure observers are not just
watching from a distance
.         BOE security plans
.         Chain of custody audits
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 list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Apr 30 23:17:05 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 23:17:05 CDT