Re: Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Tue Nov 07 2006 - 07:21:59 CST

Kurt,

My proposal included the provision that each losing candidate would
be allowed to select one precinct from each county in her election
district for the audit. But the audit would otherwise be by random selection.

The first to propose this was Saltman so far as I know.

At 01:43 PM 11/6/2006, you wrote:
>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 <<mailto:malischke@yahoo.com>malischke@yahoo.com >
>>Date: Nov 5, 2006 9:14 PM
>>Subject: audits in Wisconsin
>>To: <mailto:kathy@electionarchive.org>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>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.
>
>From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj@charter.net>
>To: ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Fwd: Question re. audits in Wisconsin
>Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:18:03 +0000
>Content-Type: Multipart/mixed;
> boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_27570_1162842237_2"
>
>_______________________________________________
>OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
>http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

(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 23:17:06 2006

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