Re: Precinct Scanner vs Central Scanner

From: Richard Carback <rick_dot_carback_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 09:52:51 CST

It might be useful to have the precinct counter be stricter than the
central count scanner. The intended effect being to reduce the
possibility of error at the central scanner.

-R

Douglas W. Jones wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 3:04 AM, Danny Swarzman wrote:
>
>
>> Should a precinct scanner and a central scanner use the same criteria
>> for recognizing marks?
>>
>
> Yes. You want to be able to recount ballots on any available
> scanner that is compatable with the same ballot format and have
> the count come out the same.
>
> The difference with central count is that the voter isn't there
> to handle badly marked ballots. So, the best you can do is kick
> back the ballot and hand it to the canvassing board for
> interpretation.
>
> Some new central count systems don't kick back the ballot, instead,
> they present an image of the ballot to the canvassing board on a
> video screen, allowing the ajudication to be done hands-off. This
> has potential advantages, but only if:
>
> 1) The original ballot can be inspected to compare it to the image
> and verify that the image has not been altered. This is something
> you want to do with a sample of ballots as part of the audit
> process.
>
> That requirement says: As you scan the ballot, print a number on
> it that allows you to relate it to the scanned ballot image. In a
> central count setting, it's not hard to keep this number from being
> used to relate the ballot to the voter.
>
> 2) Save the ajudication result as an annotation with the image, so
> you know how many votes were the result of machine scanning and
> how many were the result of human interpretation.
>
> Audits should review a random sample of the ajudicated ballots to
> verify that the board is behaving itself.
>
> Nobody has put enough effort into the question of how to audit
> central-count and absentee ballots.
>
> Doug Jones
> jones@cs.uiowa.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
>
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Dec 31 23:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 23:17:10 CST