Re: MORE Questions from election officials

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 02:14:24 CDT

At 2:03 AM -0400 5/4/04, james_in_denver wrote:
>2.1 "Sen. Clinton would be positively dismayed to learn that a lottery
>ticket has even less value to its holder than an ATM receipt. State
>lottery rules typically provide that if a dispute arises between the
>holder of a lottery ticket and the state lottery bureau, the computer
>records of the lottery bureau govern. This New Hampshire Lottery rule
>is illustrative: "To be a valid ticket and eligible to receive a prize Š
>[t]he information appearing on the ticket shall correspond precisely
>with the Commission's computer record."[22] The lottery rules clearly
>provide that computer records govern over paper ones"
>Well, again, he strays far afield here. That statute's intent is to give
>the New Hampshire Lottery Commission the right to contest apparently, or
>demonstrably fraudulent, lottery tickets. In those circumstance the
>Commission may contest the validity of any given ticket. However, if the
>number on the ticket is verifiable against the lottery database, the
>ticket must be honored. This clearly places at least some burden of
>proof of fraudulence upon New Hampshire's Lottery Commission, not the
>2.1 again, (sigh), "the lottery ticket is simply a receipt, that is, an
>item of evidence that can be considered in the event of a dispute".
>Exactly the point of having VVPB.

OK, if Prof. Shamos wins the lottery, he can hand
me his paper ticket. I'll cash it while he can
rely on the computerized record. OK?

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 Mon May 31 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT