Re: CASE-Ohio event

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 01:07:50 CDT

>    Lynn will be pushing her hand-count/paper only scheme
>    Below is what I have come up with so far.  Before you read it, keep
> in
> mind what I am looking for:
>     Here's what I have come up with so far:
>   1.. Too much man power needed
>     1.. Need one person from each party
>     2.. Need LOTS of people
>     3.. Already short on poll workers

Don't say these. All of them are clearly contradicted by voting here
in Massachusetts. A small number of poll workers can easily hand-count
paper-only ballots in a small amount of time. State law might differ,
but I don't really think the "every party" thing is followed
especially. Certainly party observers have the *right* to be there,
but the election isn't called off if a party doesn't decide to monitor
a polling place.

>     4.. 20-30 contests on the ballot, 12 propositions- takes LOTS of
> time
> and man-power to count them all (this is different than the Canadian
> system
> where they only vote for one office and hand-count it)

I've seen these sort of numbers (maybe slightly lower) in MA. Again,
doesn't take long to hand-count.

>   2.. Not politically viable
>     1.. No supporters in house or senate
>     2.. No Secretary of State supporters
>     3.. No County Registrar supporters
>     4.. No state senate or house supporters

Well, I'm not sure if it counts as "supporters", but it's not exactly
like the existing system has any notable "detractors" here in MA
either.

>   3.. Multiple languages
>   4.. Disabled Access

Good and good.

>   5.. IRV

Limited applicability. Good concept, but if a county doesn't use it,
they don't care.

>   6.. More time it takes to count = more time for corruption to happen

Tenuous at best.

>   7.. Human error (try counting a dunce cap full of boiled peas twice)

Maybe.

>   8.. Fraud
>     1.. Tamaney Hall
>     2.. Landslide Lyndon Johnson
>     3.. Chicago
> Main point:  We need computers to create an audit trail.

Well, we need observers who have access to the counting. The audit
trail is kinda "nice to have" though. But don't expect to win any real
points on that.

> We are not asking you to trust computers, we are asking you to realize
> there
> 's a need for a computer check to provide ADDED security!

That part is good.

> "We saw what happened with hand counting in Florida and it wasn't
> pretty." -Ed Cherlin

Heh! It wasn't really that un-pretty. The court cases, and especially
SCOTUS, were ugly. But I saw the inspection of chads as Democracy in
Action.

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:11 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT