Re: (no subject)

From: <somethoughts_at_aol_dot_com>
Date: Tue Jan 16 2007 - 19:24:28 CST

As I recall, the machines used for parallel testing in 05 were chosen
before election day,
which would allow evil-doers to know which machines not to fiddle with.

If an "easter-egg" is hidden in the code, no amount of parallel testing
will discover it.
( see )

Jim Soper

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] (no subject)

    I have little doubt that parallel testing measures what is can
accurately. And I certainly think it useful in foreclosing many kinds
errors. And even if we dismiss the claim that clever software could
determine if it's being parallel tested and act properly, there's still
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
mecklenberg this year are narrowly focused events rather than
distributed distortions. Things kike the vote reporting errors on ES&S
that occur under low battery conditions that doug jones investigated
only happen
selectively and probably never to a machine under parallel testing
naturally has a higher level of supervision. Screen miscalibration
errors like
in texas are again unlikely in well controlled circumstances with
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
on screen. These are the kinds of things that parallel testing would
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
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

Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

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