Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Tue May 03 2005 - 23:29:01 CDT

Keith Copenhagen wrote:

> A couple of points...
>
> I'd like to point out that with two copies of the ballot, you have
> lost the fundmental singularity that is casting the vote. There is
> always
> some finite possibility that the identical copies will be different.
> (paper
> jam, ink drop-out, malfeasance)

Sure...

> However, I suspect that there is an opportunity to build the redundancy
> and auditability in after the vote is tabulated.
>
> I seem to remember a discussion on this forum about a 3rd world
> election ballot
> that included a backup copy that was mailed in. This starts
> connecting to
> post election statstical analysis as a trigger for audit.

...but the term you just used ("trigger for audit") is the key concept.
The secondary paper will be marked "duplicate" in some fashion, and will
not be the official ballot of record.

It WILL however be used to sniff out trouble. And knowing that, the
county will be damned loath to dick around with them!

Jim
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:15 2005

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