Re: WHAT THE DEMO WILL DEMONSTRATE --voting methods, tabulation, and on-screen ballot

From: Dennis Paull <dpaull_at_svpal_dot_org>
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 19:13:36 CDT

Hi all,

A few comments:

1. n of m voting is common for many Boards, particular for smaller
districts. This includes city councils, school boards, water, fire
and park districts. But NOT cat catcher.

2. Vote tabulation is not necessarily simply adding up of precinct
votes. At least for absentees, voters might make mistakes, ballots
might get damaged and there might be other reasons that ballots need
special handling. Fortunately, votes from DREs should be close to
error free. Still, there needs to be a way for a small number of
votes to be added to the database. I don't see any reason for votes
to be subtracted.

I strongly recommend that Slocum or some other election official be
consulted about the need for manual handling of ballots, especially
absentees and provisionals.

This is a situation not addressed by Bev Harris' analysis of the GEMS
vote tabulation software. It helps explain SOME, but not all, of the
strange software found by Bev. Elections officials will be very aware
of the need for special handling and we need to accommodate them.

Dennis Paull

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 02:05 PM 8/26/2003 Tuesday , you wrote:
>> >
>> I think we show,
>>
>> 1) Precinct level tabulation
>> 2) County wide tabulation
>>
>Another thought about what we should include...
>
>In our system, tabulation should be performed at the precinct level right
>after the polls close. The result should be posted publicly for the
>precinct and an electronic file with the tabulated results should be
>immediately submitted to the county.
>
>When county-wide tabulation is performed at the county elections HQ, there
>will be a routine to check the county tabulation against the aggregate of
>the precinct tabulations. This means that any alteration of the data file
>at the county level will show up as a mis-match against precinct level
>tabulation.
>
>That is, we show the result two ways: one way by combining all the precinct
>tallies and another way by tabulating the aggregated file with all the
>ballots in the county. The two results must match.
>
>We can give an example by manually altering a ballot and then running the
>county-wide tabulation routine -- alarms go off, lights flash FRAUD
>DETECTED.
>
>Alan Dechert
>
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Aug 31 23:17:17 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 23:17:18 CDT