Re: Precinct Scanner vs Central Scanner

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 10:03:23 CST

On Dec 20, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Richard Carback wrote:

> 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.

But if you can reduce the possibility of errors at the central site,
you can also reduce them at the precinct.

If a significant number of ballots are being kicked back for voters
to re-mark at the precinct, or for the canvassing board to interpret
at the central site, it means that the ballot marking instructions are
poorly thought out or too difficult to follow, or that the scanner is
poorly adjusted.

I see no reason to change the criteria based on context. How a mark
on the paper is interpreted should depend only on the mark, not on
where that mark is seen.

                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/
==================================================================
= 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