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

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Tue Jul 06 2004 - 11:05:26 CDT

Joe,

> On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:34:35 -0700, Alan Dechert
> <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> 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.
>
Uhhh. I know that. They quoted it, however. If they had a better idea of
what a DRE is, they should have quoted something different, imo.

> > 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)
>
Of course I agree with the overall conclusion of the Court. I don't like
the way they handled Brady's comments. I would rather hear them deal with
what he said straight on. It seems they said, "Brady is not a good
scientist, so we don't have to listen to him." I talk to a lot of really
smart people on a daily basis, and I think Brady is one of the smartest. It
wasn't necessary for the Court to step around his comments in this way.
They mischaracterized what Brady said.

Alan D.
==================================================================
= 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