Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 27, Issue 18

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Tue Jan 23 2007 - 14:33:18 CST

> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 09:51:54 -0600
> From: Jerry Lobdill <>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] [EILeg] Response to Bev & Urgent Action
> Alert - Please Act Today

> I am not persuaded by the conclusion that "it aint going to happen".
> If it isn't going to happen that a proper method (which is, BTW, NOT
> more complicated than this asinine tiered approach) then we should,
> as a community create a huge noise to the effect that we don't want
> any provision for audit that does not produce a 99% confidence level.
> It would be better to delay the push for proper audits to another day
> when we can get a better hearing from a sponsor who is not advised by
> amateurs and biased people.

Rather than making mischaracterizations, let's stick to the facts Jerry.

It is utterly simple for election officials to understand and
implement a tiered audit by simply looking up the margins between
candidates in initial election results in a simple 4 row table like
Table #2 on page 2 of my "Tiered Election Audit" paper:

Why would you rather have virtually a 0% chance of detecting miscount
that could result in the wrong people being sworn into the US Congress
or as president in 2008, rather than have at least a 60% to 99% chance
to detect miscount that could subvert the voters' will?

 Why is it that you prefer postponing the opportunity to have fair
elections when we have the opportunity to have fair elections now?

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 14:12:47 2008

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