Re: Electronic Voting Systems "Audited"

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Sat Aug 20 2005 - 21:42:10 CDT

Ron Crane wrote:

> Charlie Strauss wrote:
>> Below is an intriguing article. An organization tried the following
>> experiment which they mistakenly call parallel testing.
>> Voters voted on an Diebold Accuvote, and then they were asked to
>> vote again in a different manner.
>> the result showed a 4% difference.
>> The article wants you to believe this shows that the accuvote is
>> inaccurate.
>> Such a conclusion is of course unjustified till we reject more
>> plausible explanations.
> Really? "Of course?" For what reason does the "Accuvote" deserve this
> deference?

I've talked to the people doing the San Diego "advanced exit poll"
(basically what it was) and I have some mild concerns.

1) I can see the possibility that maybe the Democrat voters were more
interested in the idea of fraud and therefore maybe participated to a
higher degree. Like, say, about 4%. Countering that is the fact that
at least one of the exit poll sites was more heavily Republican yet the
"skew" was in the same ballpark.

2) The organizers decided to stay 100ft from polling locations as if
they were a political speech thing of some sort (follwing the
no-politicking-nearby rule). BUT they had stripped off all partisan
emblems/stickers/buttons/etc. of any sort. So I would argue that they
didn't NEED to be 100ft away. Being closer would not only have netted
more turnout, it would have netted turnout that was less "self selected
by interest in the process" which could skew results in a particular
political direction. Electronic voting reform has been wrongly
percieved as a "Democrat thing" since FL2000.

Those issues aside, I strongly support a volunteer-financed recount of
those 11 precincts esp. since we now know the 1% manual recount
precincts were NOT randomly picked but rather were hand-selected for
easy counting and a given size range!!!

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 23:17:29 2005

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