Re: Question re. Op Scan error rates vs. Punch Card error rates

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue Aug 16 2005 - 10:03:04 CDT


Punch card systems are now illegal. They are
comparing apples and oranges. Also, the error rate
sounds suspiciously high. Demand to see detailied
test information and say that without such, their
statement must be ignored. The numbers could have
easily just been pulled out of someone's posterior.

Additionally, if someone drops back on the above
challenge and trys to say that op-scan is less
accurate than DRE, ask them to explain how they can
tell with a system that leaves no audit trail.

Finally, ask them why on earth they prefer such an
expensive system ($7-8k per 100 voters plus GEMS
software, etc.) that also has such a continuing 'bad
smell' around it?

HTH, Ed Kennedy

--- Kathy Dopp <> wrote:

> Thank you very much to those who gave me the answers
> I needed re.
> Diebold's redundancy.
> I also need help with this:
> Utah's Lt. Governor also claims that
> "The average optical scan system error rate was
> 5.69%, far worse than
> the average punchcard error rate of 3.83%"
> Can anyone please help me rebut that?
> It is difficult to keep up with all the stuff
> happening in Utah and try
> to work to get the National Election Data Archive
> off the ground too. I
> still have more to report from the NASED conference
> too when I get a chance.
> FYI, I will post all the UT Lt. Governor's
> statements and my responses
> at by
> tomorrow some time.
> Best Regards,
> Kathy
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <>
I blog now and then at:  <>
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Aug 31 23:17:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:44:12 CDT