Re: exit polls vs. election results

From: Ron Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 09:06:55 CDT

The losing candidates don't always want to win (e.g., very arguably
Kerry in Ohio). And the public at large has an interest -- beyond
determining who won -- in whether there was cheating. Random Recounts
serve that interest better than TAR by a determined loser.

-R

On May 17, 2005, at 5:33 AM, dr-jekyll@att.net wrote:

> Another opinion.  To me this points out the advantages of TAR
> (Targeted Audit Recount) over Random Recount for using VVPB paper
> ballots to verify election results.  The TAR allocates the precincts
> to be recounted to the candidates, with the lion's share's going to
> the losing candidates. 
>  
> Why sample at random when it's less expensive and more effective
> concentrate where there is suspicion and let the losing candidates
> pick the precincts rather than have them chosen by a process that is
> potentially corruptible?  Potentially corruptible also means there can
> be believable accusations of corruption even when there is none.
> --
> Kurt
>
> This email sent using 100%
> recycled electrons.
>
>
> -------------- Original message from Stephanie Frank Singer
> <sfsinger@campaignscientific.com>: --------------
>
>
> > >
> > >> Opinions? Note that this column has supported the USCV position
> in
> > >> the
> > >> past.
> > >>
> > >> -Fred-
> > >>
> > >> http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6046
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > First fact: this is only Ohio data. The states with the most
> > suspicious results were PA, NY, NH and VT.
> >
> > Second: I looked for this "report" on line and found only some slides
> > for a presentation. Now I can't even get access to those on the
> > website. (So I've attached the copy I downloaded yesterday to this
> > message so you all can take a look.)
> >
> > Action item: Can we use! this report as leverage to get more of the
> > underlying data from Mitofsky/Edison? Here in PA we're quite
> > frustrated by the unwillingness of M/E to release the precinct-level
> > data to us so that we can do more thorough analysis. The report says
> > that Scheuren has access to more data than other reports. How did
> > Scheuren get access to more data?
> >
> > --Stephanie
>
> From: Stephanie Frank Singer <sfsinger@campaignscientific.com>
> Date: May 16, 2005 6:22:52 AM PDT
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
> Cc: Josh Mitteldorf <josh@mathforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] exit polls vs. election results
>
>
> <Scheuren050514.pdf>_______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:39 2005

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