Great News! Frank says he can solve the "Election Integrity" Equation!

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Tue Jul 18 2006 - 15:27:48 CDT

Congratulations on solving the equation. I can hardly wait to see it.

On the matter of language, I am not enthused about the language you
suggest. I think that this language will be interpreted by many
officials who understand politics, as a permit to do whatever they
decide upon (in their abject ignorance of statistical math). I
believe the methodology should be spelled out precisely, and they
should be required to implement it as specified. That means careful
wording of the legislation, but I'd rather have that problem than to
have Sec'ys of State deciding that their authority gives them the
power to be the decider.

At 02:00 PM 7/18/2006, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>If language is inserted into all audit legislation that merely
>requires something that everyone agrees upon like:
>
>"Vote count audits should be designed to give a high probability that
>no election outcomes are wrongfully altered."
>
>then independent auditors will be forced to use our "election
>integrity" formula for calculating percentages of vote counts to
>alter.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Jul 31 23:17:06 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 23:17:09 CDT