Re: Fwd: L&A Test Question

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Mon Jul 24 2006 - 13:33:04 CDT

I'll let others determine my reputation. L&A tests can, if properly
conducted, help detect ballot programming errors. They are, however, of
very limited use in detecting the presence of malicious code, whether
emplaced by a crooked official, a hacker, or a crooked vendor. Since
voting machines usually know the current date and the scheduled date of
each election, a competent cheater will program them to cheat then but
to operate honestly on all other dates. Parallel testing (see, e.g., at s.3.3)
can help detect some such frauds, but it is difficult and time-consuming
to conduct properly, and any slip-up can permit malicious code to go


Kathy Dopp wrote:
> Can anyone help Mark on the shortcomings of L&A testing?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mark Halvorson <>
> Date: Jul 22, 2006 10:03 AM
> Subject: L&A Test Question
> To: Kathy Dopp <>
> Hi Kathy,
> Hope you're having a good summer. We are gearing up to observe our
> first statewide election audit.
> I'm trying to find a statement by a reputable computer expert,
> organization or a study commenting on the effectiveness of an L&A test
> in catching ballot programming errors and assuring the machines operate
> properly. I have searched the usual places and all I've found is an
> assessment for DRE's and a paper by John Washburn on doing a thorough
> L&A test.
> Any ideas you have would be appreciated.
> Take care,
> Mark Halvorson
> Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota
> 612-724-1736
> _______________________________________________
> OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list
= 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 23:17:07 2006

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