Re: Have you ever been a poll worker?

From: <gaylemertz_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon May 17 2004 - 12:24:01 CDT

-Minor correction. I told David that election judges rotate the roles that they play. Usually takes five people, each completing a minor specific task. Thus, no one person has control over a specific task, materials or records. Rotating usually taks place every 2-3 hours giving each election judge a couple of turns at each station. This is the case for `election judges' peoplel paid and trained by the County Clerk. `Poll watchers' are basicly untrained volunteers. Depending on the number of volunteers that a political party or `issue based' referendum, constitutional amendament or voter initiative--are able to recruit there may or may not be a poll watcher at each poll at all times. Full all day coverage is rare. ---------------------------------------------
On Mon, 17 May 2004 02:41:04 -0400, David Mertz <> wrote:

> > [Ed system] Using Santa Clara County as an example, the third poll
> > worker wouldn't sit behind the table, but would instead escort each
> > voter to a machine and activate it. Could be workable. That poll
> > worker will get a lot of exercise. :-)
> I understand from Gayle (my mom) that normally poll workers are
> supposed to rotate roles during the day. At least in Colorado. Still
> some exercise, but each one only exercises for, e.g. 1/4 of the day.
> >> David: Each voter given unique PIN to enter on machine from randomized
> >> list. PIN contains code for party specification.
> > No extra poll workers needed, but does require voter to remember a
> > six-digit number, or else have the poll-worker write it down on a slip
> > of paper to hand to the voter (slowing down the process).
> Right. I was thinking about whether it might be easier to remember a
> shorter letter/number combination than a plain digit string. It
> depends whether voters are presented with a number keypad or an
> onscreen keyboard (as for write-ins). It might easier to remember
> '35Q2F' than to remember '354821', for example (both contain a similar
> amount of information in total, i.e. enough). That's an empirical
> question, but I think one that people have looked at in other contexts.
> Voters *will* be frustrated by entry errors. But they would be allowed
> to try more than once, I presume (I'm not sure whether that means
> unlimited, or up to N). Maybe with the 10 second delay I suggested
> between attempts to limit attacks.
> > Identical to current DRE procedures, including what was used in Santa
> > Clara County. (BTW, each polling place was given 25 smart cards, even
> > though there were only five machines, so that if a few went missing
> > voting could still take place.)
> Right. But can the cards that "go missing" be smuggled back in later
> to cast illegal votes? Maybe there's a way to guard against that, but
> it sounds like complicated procedure for poll workers to follow (and
> complicated programming to set it up).
= 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 23:17:49 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT