Re: Sequoia Test Group

From: Kathy Dopp <kathy_dot_dopp_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Jun 12 2006 - 15:09:33 CDT

> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:12:04 -0700
> From: Arthur Keller <>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Sequoia Test Group
> At 10:41 AM -0600 6/12/06, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> >
> >
> >Arthur and Jim,
> >
> >Are you aware of the statistically highly improbable vote counts
> >from Sequoia DREs in the 2004 November election in NV, NM, and WA?
> >
> Thanks, Kathy, for your message. They want to go primarily with a
> paper ballot system with precinct-based optical scan. Alameda County
> has chosen Sequoia as the vendor for that system, and therefore also
> for the DRE's (with paper trail).

Terrific. As long as both systems are independently scientifically audited,
it looks great.

The other alternative they were considering was Diebold (comparable
> arrangement). An alternative bid was from ES&S including the
> Automark, an all paper ballot with precinct optical scan and
> Automark's for accessibility. What are the reports on the ES&S
> precinct-based optical scan systems?

Well, what little I know, ES&S optical scan systems have produced suspicious
patterns in FL and other locations. People like John Brakey of AZ have
uncovered opscan ballot-substitution rings by poll workers. And an election
official in Iowa just hand-counted all her opscan ballots and found that the
hand-count gave different results than the ES&S machine counts.

So, precautions to guard against ballot substitution, ballot box stuffing,
and ballot spoiling (of the deliberate kind), must be taken; as well as
independent audits.

I agree with you that the AutoMARK is a better system than segregating
disabled voters' ballots on DREs, but at least you will have a system that
is possible to safeguard.

Keep up the great work.


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 Fri Jun 30 23:17:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT