Re: Spoiled ballots, forged ballots, destroyed ballots

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 23:26:39 CDT

At 11:10 PM -0400 6/11/04, David Mertz wrote:
>On Jun 11, 2004, at 10:41 PM, John Payson wrote:
>>Other than that, though, the fundamental problem is one of
>>demonstrating to an
>>interested and knowledgeable person that if the election equipment recorded
>>votes inaccurately, it would most likely get discovered
>Right... as the OVC design does very simply. We spot check a
>percentage of ballots by comparing the scan against visual
>examination (randomly selected).

Actually, we check the electronic ballot image against the printed
ballot for each and every cast ballot. We suggest recounts be done
for a random percentage of the precincts, checking the EBI against
the printed and cast ballot, and we suggest that the a smaller random
percentage of the precincts hand count the printed ballots against
the scanned and EBI totals.

Furthermore, I propose that the electronically cast ballot totals
(contest by contest) be posted outside the door of the precinct and
that the county website allow drill down to the precinct level for
both in-polling-place totals and separate absentee ballot totals.

Then you could trust the in-polling-place figures and the rollup
totals. The absentee ballots (and provisional ballots and other hand
cast ballots) should be canvassed at county central in full view of

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Jun 30 23:17:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 30 2004 - 23:17:30 CDT