Re: Text of count every vote act.

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 21:39:44 CST

Hello Kurt:

Perhaps you could share this information with A: Your elected representatives and B: The sponsors of the legislation? (In case you hadn't already done so.)

Thanks, Ed Kennedy
  ----- Original Message -----
  To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
  Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Text of count every vote act.

> It requires 1-2% manual audits.
> it requires the paper be the official record in a recount.

  We've had good discussions in this forum showing the benefits of 1) Targeted Audit Recounts rather than random recounts and 2) Making both the electronic results and paper ballots to be of equal validity and when they differ to audit both to see which (or both) has been subject to error or tampering.

  If the federal government dictates procedures down to the precinct level, that will totally stifle innovation by the States. In 1994, New Hampshire passed the nation's first VVPAT law. Those of us who worked on this law had enough difficulty convincing people in New Hampshire of the issues. But we were successful. If we had also needed to ask the federal government for permission for exception to prescribed procedures, we'd still be filing forms and answering tangential questions.


  This email sent using 100%
  recycled electrons.


  OVC discuss mailing lists
  Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Mar 31 23:17:04 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2005 - 23:17:09 CST