Re: Fw: Request time for public comment

From: Richard C. Johnson <dick_at_iwwco_dot_com>
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 08:33:39 CDT

The simple reason why not is that Targeted Recounts were exactly the failed strategy of the Gore campaign in Florida in 2000, which led to the Supreme Court-appointed current administration, the war in Iraq, the current and looming disasters in our economy, and the state of our legal system where we are one Supreme away from adopting Guantanamo as the model for our national civil liberties. What candidates' intelligence? And what level of resources should the maintenance of our liberties command? If a true majority of American citizens really wants to vote into office the horsemen of the apocalypse, well, let's do it in a properly conducted election.
 
In short, this idea won't hunt.
 
These are my personal opinions and not necessary those of my employer, clients, or anyone else.
 
-- Dick

dr-jekyll@att.net wrote:

Why not adopt the Targeted Audit Recount and use fewer resources by letting the candidates (stakeholders for ballot questions) pick the precincts to be audited? Using the candidates' intelligence about the election has many advantages over randomness.
 
If you wanted to get a pheasant, would you send 100 hunters into corn field shooting their shotguns in random directions or would you send in one or two hunters with a good bird dog?
 

--
Kurt 
This email sent using 100% 
recycled electrons.
-------------- Original message from Kathy Dopp <kathy@uscountvotes.org>: -------------- 
> Teresa Hommel wrote: 
> 
> >(3) No count of votes on a random selection of a tiny percentage of VV records 
> is "significant" to our democracy. It only forces people to accept a secret 
> count of the vast majority of votes. 
> > 
> Teresa, 
> 
> Please read this explanation (URL below) of routine independent audits 
> of the paper record of votes in randomly selected precincts. The 
> following paper is written for the lay person with the exception of the 
> appendix, so that you can better understand random audits. Counties or 
> states should do their own studies to determine more specific audit 
> procedures, along with a specific method of random selection of precincts. 
> 
> We! mathematicians and statisticians spend many many hours and many days, 
> at great sacrifice to our personal lives, writing just these three pages 
> and creating the free spreadsheet to figure this out and explain it to 
> folks like you because we care about America, so please take the time to 
> study it: 
> 
> http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/Paper_Audits.pdf 
> 
> Random audits would be highly likely to detect at least one miscounted 
> precint (even if the percentage of miscounts in each precincts was very 
> small) that was spread out over a substantial proportion of precincts. 
> 
> Mathematical analysis of the detailed election results after the 
> election, would catch any larger miscounts in a few precincts, because 
> it would analyze ALL the precincts' election results. 
> 
> Between the two methods above, almost all vote count errors could be 
! > detected immediately post election before candidates conceded. > 
> The ONLY hangups to cleaning up our election systems will be: 
> 
> 1. making sure that there is a way to "independently" audit a paper 
> records of votes everywhere. 
> 2. making sure candidates do not concede until after they examine the 
> detailed election data 
> 3. raising the money to build the National Election Data Archive in time 
> for Nov 06 so that the detailed election data can be examined. 
> 
> Using the two methods above, many errors will begin to be detected and 
> corrected in our elections PRIOR to swearing in the wrong candidates, 
> and many voting systems will be exposed as being the most error prone 
> and will begin to be replaced as folks realize how bad they are, by 
> systems such as OVCs. 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Kathy Dopp 
> http://electionarchive.org 
> -------------------------------- 
> 
> Please email elect! ion-subscribe@uscountvotes.org to receive our email 
> announcements. 
> 
> Mission: 
> The National Election Data Archive is a scientific project whose mission 
> is to investigate the accuracy of elections through the creation and 
> analysis of a database containing precinct-level vote-type election data 
> for the entire United States. By making detailed election data publicly 
> available and, when warranted, by informing election officials and 
> candidates of probable errors in local vote counts, our goal is to 
> ensure that correctly elected candidates are sworn into office in future 
> elections. 
> 
> USCV brochures are available: 
> http://uscountvotes.net/docs_pdf/info/US/USCVbrochure.pdf 
> 
> US Count Votes 
> P.O. Box 682556 
> Park City, UT 84068 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> OVC discuss m! ailing lists 
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to art hur@openvotingconsortium.org _______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:20 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT