Re: Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin

From: charlie strauss <cems_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Mon Nov 06 2006 - 14:04:27 CST

Yeah TAR would be dandy. In NM the random recount law is still in flux because techincally the laws on the books are contradictory. I'm hoping when the law is amended we can redifine random to include TAR. (recounts required in 2007, but opening the ballot box for the recount may still be illegal. oops)

So if you are still fighting for random counts here's a bit of strategy advice. TAR takes too long to explain when you're struggling just to get the word "recount" in the media and infront of legislators. Just argue for recounts, and then go talk to the two guys that actually write the words in the bill and get them to write it so that TAR is not foreclosed by the meaning of "random". Focus on getting TAR to be an SOS policy and worry about making it law later.

As for ten sided dice.... Why not plain old 6 sided dice. Ever heard of base 6?

-----Original Message-----
>From: dr-jekyll@att.net
>Sent: Nov 6, 2006 12:43 PM
>To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>, ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>Cc: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>, Kurt Hyde <Dr-Jekyll@att.net>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin
>
>Jerry,
>
>I normally agree with you, but on this one I'm still a hold-out for TAR (Targeted Audit Recount) which lets the candidates determine where the recounts should be with the losing candidates' getting the lion's share. If they want to use 10-sided dice, great. Same for rand() on the spreadsheet. But sometimes the candidates know where to look for the problems because they have other evidence like we did with LBJ and Ballot Box 13 in Alice, Texas.
>
>--
>Kurt
>
>This email sent using 100%
>recycled electrons.
>
>
>-------------- Original message from Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>: --------------
>
>The Excel spreadsheet function RAND() generates uniform random numbers.
>
>For transparency I prefer the David Dill et al method using 10 sided dice.
>
>Jerry Lobdill
>
>********************
>At 12:09 PM 11/6/2006, you wrote:
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>From: "Richard C. Johnson" <dick@iwwco.com>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: kathy@electionarchive.org,
> Open Voting Consortium discussion list <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>In-Reply-To: <391f105b0611052050t400a5b38g7c502e6d54393a0e@mail.gmail.com>
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 08:18:36 -0800 (PST)
>Reply-To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>Message-ID: <20061106161836.55025.qmail@web409.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1715840905-1162829916=:54670"
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin
>Message: 5
>
>The questions for any random number generator are:
>
>1. What is the seed, and how is it chosen?
>2. Does the same seed result in the same list of pseudo random numbers?
>
>Note: good random number generators use functions involving very precise clocks or pi or some other function that will NOT allow ready prediction of a deterministic result. All random number generators are not created equal.
>
>The real question, then, is still the transparancy of the process. How are things done and who gets to know about it and who controls how it works?
>
>-- Dick
>
>
>Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I have this same question for Utah - although they may select a different random number generator program.
>
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>
>From: Paul Malischke <malischke@yahoo.com >
>
>Date: Nov 5, 2006 9:14 PM
>
>Subject: audits in Wisconsin
>
>To: kathy@electionarchive.org
>
>
>Hello,
>
>The Wisconsin State Elections Board completed the procedure for audits of vote counts over the weekend. They plan to use Excel's random number generator for selecting which areas are audited. I am not familiar with this. Does it meet our goal of a transparent method of selection?
>
>
>
>The procedures are at http://www.fairelectionswi.com/audits/audits.htm
>
>Thanks for your help,
>
>Paul Malischke
>
>(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
>
>"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Thu Nov 30 23:17:05 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST