Re: A generic best practice document for NewMexicolegislators

From: Ken Pugh <kpughmisc_at_pughkilleen_dot_com>
Date: Wed Dec 29 2004 - 09:59:08 CST

At 10:20 AM 12/29/2004, you wrote:

>It seems like some error between the paper and electronic ballot should be
>tolerable, since even with OVC its possible the ballot reconciliation
>procedure will find some paper ballots missing not accounted for with the
>list of spoiled ballots. But how much and when does this trip a recount
>paid for by the state as oppose to a challenge paid for by the
>challenger. That's the advice I seek since I'm actually trying to make
>reccomendations to law makers.
>

I would suggest that guideline be that the state pay for it if the margin
of victory is less than some multiple of the estimated error rate for
ballots. The multiple would be set at creating a very low probability of
error.

For example, if the estimated error rate is 1% and the desired probability
of a wrong victor declaration was set at .5%, then the maximum margin of
victory for which the state would pay for the recount would be maybe 5%
(statisticians please help out here with an exact number).

Testing a system in its environment could provide a good measurement of the
error rate. Then the law need only set the desired probability for
erroneous victors.

Ken

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:21 2004

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