Re: Fw: Use of audit/copies in event of loss of original ballots Riverside County

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 08:48:13 CDT

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:34:35 -0700, Alan Dechert
<> wrote:
> This tentative order carries some very sloppy reasoning and omissions. The
> description of touchscreen is dumb.

That's directly from Weber v. Shelley... not from this court. That's
how the law works.

> Footnote 4 (pg 9) has this:
> > The Court is not satisfied that there is any scientifically
> > tested or peer-reviewed research to support the notion
> > that most undervotes are unintentional or due to system
> > error. Comparing only residual vote rates is not a
> > scientifically valid method of comparing voting system
> > performance.
> >
> I totally agree with this. However, it's ironic that the court is saying
> this in rebutting Henry Brady's declaration. As far as I can tell, the
> CalTech/MIT project invented the notion of "residual vote" as a "A Yardstick
> for Reliability."

Of course, reliability is only one axis of "voting system
performance". As to performance, the court is right on... there is
not a good way of measuring this now.

> So, in my opinion, The Court is beating a straw man. They are faking an
> excuse to disregard Brady's declaration.

I don't agree... they have the information that they were given by the
parties involved and the two amici. They've draw sensible conclusions
from this information. If the lawsuit was about undervotes, that
would be a different matter... but the lawsuit is about the SoS's
ability and authority to regulate voting systems and whether or not
rescinding the April 30 declarations is justified because disabled
voters can no longer vote in private. I believe the Court came to the
correct conclusion that this would be ridiculous. (my words)


Joseph Lorenzo Hall
UC Berkeley, SIMS PhD Student
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Sat Jul 31 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 23:17:15 CDT