Re: Ballot Validation

From: Edward Cherlin <cherlin_at_pacbell_dot_net>
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 03:13:45 CST

On Wednesday 15 December 2004 04:45 pm, Ken Pugh wrote:
> At 09:12 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
> >There's another position that I think is superior to these
> > two:
> >
> > The rule I would prefer to see says:
> >
> > In the event of a disagreement, an investigation must be
> > initiated in order to determine which copy is most likely to
> > be correct...
> >
> > Doug Jones
> >
> Let me pose an interesting possibility. Suppose some voters
> took away their receipts. I could imagine even myself doing
> it accidentally since it's only a "receipt" or perhaps I'd
> really like to keep a record of how I voted. So now the paper
> records will differ from the computer records.
> Ken

One frequently proposed method is to say in advance that the
paper in the ballot box is the vote, and paper you take home
isn't. This conflicts with the goal of auditing, of course. How
many ballots could go missing before the flag goes up? A partial
answer is that we check whether there is a statistically
significant difference between the vote shares on the paper and
on the missing ballots. This fails if voters from one party are
more likely to walk off with their ballots for whatever reason.

Anyway, it's too soon to give a real answer. We have to do the
research on the options so we can consider them all before we
can come to any reasonable conclusion.

Edward Cherlin
Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy and more
"A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
--Alice in Wonderland
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 Fri Dec 31 23:17:17 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST