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 - 19:12:50 CDT

> 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.

The Court said[1] that using undervotes is not a scientifically-valid
proxy for system performance and that it was not persuaded by his
"opinion and conclusions." The Court also mentions that Brady assumes
that all undervotes were unintentional, which the Court does not buy,
and neither do I. Since Prof. Brady's declaration was based on
residual votes entirely, the Court did not consider it.

I do agree that the mention of "opinion" and the "is not a
statistician" remarks can be interpreted as being harsh, but the Court
is looking for data. To this Court, this wasn't evidence of better
DRE performance... granted, residual votes have been used as a proxy
for *reliability* but even Brady himself notes that this is one
(granted, important) measure of performance.


[1] at page 9: "This conclusion is based on the declaration of
Professor Henry E. Brady, Ph.D., who concluded, based on the number of
residual votes in the March 2004 election in Los Angeles County, that
one in eight to one in five votes had not been counted. Dr. Brady
filed a second declaration, in which he acknowledged that his original
conclusion was based on erroneous data. However, he continues to
believe that Los Angeles' residual vote rate was higher than other
large counties in California, demonstrating that the Inka Vote system
is not as reliable as DREs. The Court is not persuaded by Dr. Brady's
opinion and conclusions. In both declarations, Dr. Brady, who is not a
statistician, relies only on residual vote rate to draw his
conclusions concerning the efficacy of different voting systems.
Additionally, he asserts as a basic premise that the vast majority of
undervotes in the March 2004 election were unintentional. 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.
(See Declaration of Jonathan N. Katz). Accordingly, the Court does not
consider the Brady declaration."

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 23:17:10 2004

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