Re: (no subject)

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Tue Jan 16 2007 - 11:32:28 CST

I have little doubt that parallel testing measures what is can measure accurately. And I certainly think it useful in foreclosing many kinds of errors. And even if we dismiss the claim that clever software could nefariously determine if it's being parallel tested and act properly, there's still the question of whether parallel testing really forecloses election error.

The kind of errors or suspicious events we seem to see most often are, naturally, the ones we can most easily observe. Things like sarasota or mecklenberg this year are narrowly focused events rather than universally distributed distortions. Things kike the vote reporting errors on ES&S machines that occur under low battery conditions that doug jones investigated only happen selectively and probably never to a machine under parallel testing which naturally has a higher level of supervision. Screen miscalibration errors like in texas are again unlikely in well controlled circumstances with professional testers doing the voting. These systematic kinds of errors in small numbers of machines are unlikely to be caught by paralell testing. The other kind of event is vote shaving sorts of outcomes where we hear people rpeorting votes shifting on screen. These are the kinds of things that parallel testing would also dismiss as tester error. (we know this for a fact since tha!
 t's exactly what happens in L&A testing when things don't add up).

It's not that paralle testing could not discover errors. It's just that when anomolies do occur in the real elections but not in the parallel tests, are we really reassured? If not then this bandaid solution is not healing the problem but simply covering it up.

-----Original Message-----
>From: David Jefferson <>
>Sent: Jan 16, 2007 8:55 AM
>To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list <>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] "California Monitoring Program Reports Votes Cast on Electronic Machines Were Accurately Recorded"
>I did not have anything to do with parallel testing in CA this year,
>but I have in the past. On the previous occasions the testing was
>done very carefully and professionally, and only one serious anomaly
>was ever found (a probable calibration problem on an ES&S DRE). I am
>not vouching for the information in this article since I was not
>there, but I don't think it is "the usual disinformation". It can
>probably be taken at face value.
>On Jan 16, 2007, at 7:39 AM, Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>> Hello:
>> Does anybody know anything about the story below? Seems like
>> the usual disinformation, but if anyone has participated, I'd be
>> interested in hearing about the methodology.
>> <
>> id=103256&utm_source=gten_070112&utm_medium=enews&utm_content=story>
>> --
>> 10777 Bendigo Cove
>> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>> 858-578-8842
>> Work for the common good.
>> My profile:
>> I blog now and then at:
>> _______________________________________________
>> OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue Jan 1 14:12:45 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 01 2008 - 14:12:51 CST