Re: draft of text for new OVC-sponsored bill

From: Jerry Depew <depew_at_ncn_dot_net>
Date: Sat Jan 24 2009 - 10:06:36 CST

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:48:41 -0600, Edward Cherlin <echerlin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The rate of successful and correct scanning of printed
> ballots is much better than for hand-marked ballots.

How much better than 99.99% do we need to get?

"There were 2,423,851 votes counted for Coleman and Franken. The "net"
error rate is the net change in the vote margin from the machine-scan to
the hand recount . . . . . This was 264 votes, for an accuracy of 99.99%
(error, one part in ten thousand)."

  from Freedom to Tinker at
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/optical-scan-voting-extremely-accurate-minnesota

-- 
Jerry Depew, Laurens, IA
http://iowavoters.org
_______________________________________________
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 Thu Jan 7 00:09:50 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 07 2010 - 00:09:57 CST