Re: Precinct Scanner vs Central Scanner

From: Richard Carback <rick_dot_carback_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 10:22:08 CST

I think there are many reasons why you would want to treat the ballot
differently in different contexts. Assuming a review screen, a stricter
precinct scanner ensures all marks should be correctly interpreted by
the central scan, and there's no reason why a central count scanner
could/should ever kick out a ballot in that scenario. As the ink and
paper age, the marks might become harder to read, and there are other
environmental factors that might come into play. Central count scanners
scan the ballots much faster, and could scan much faster with a lower
quality image.

They are physically different devices (one needs to be fast, the other
not so much), and what is proposed would have them be used in different
ways. The first acts as a filter, and the second shouldn't be filtering
at all. A questionable ballot at the filter should leave no room for
error at the central scanner. It should be thought of as an indication
of fraud.

-R

Douglas W. Jones wrote:
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:08 2007

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