Fwd: Further Experiences with Sequoia AVC Edge with VeriVote Printer as Precinct Inspector in Santa Clara County

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Fri Nov 10 2006 - 15:40:05 CST


Thanks for your report. I served in Tarrant County, TX as a poll
watcher for two candidates.

The idea of using cash register thermal print paper rolls for VVPAT
is ridiculous. These are not permanent records. They fade with time
and will be completely unreadable long before statutory limits on
retention of ballots is reached in most states. Secondly, this does
not provide an effective VVPAT for purposes of recount. Only ballot
images printed on separate sheets that look like a paper ballot will
serve as an effective VVPAT IMO. In Cuyahoga County Ohio the fact
that the VVPATs were printed on cash register rolls was used as an
excuse for not doing a meaningful election audit in which a partial
ballot recount is required.

I wonder if polling place equipment requirements are determined using
queuing theory. If so, how do they decide what the turnout will be?
If not, why not? Here in Tarrant County , TX I collected some
queuing data at precinct 1378, where 1416 ballots were cast. The
ballot, which was a two sided ballot approximately 8.5x17 inches,
took the average voter 5 minutes to fill out by hand. The voters who
used the Hart InterCivic E-slate DRE voting machine took almost
exactly twice as long (10 minutes) to complete their
e-ballots. There were 10 voting booths for paper ballots and 1 DRE
machine. At the busiest time (5:45-6:20 PM) there were an average of
20 people in line to use a paper ballot voting booth and the average
waiting time in the queue was 10 minutes.

Precinct 1378 had 4505 registered voters, and the precinct, on the
edge of Fort Worth, is growing so fast that the Elections
Administration (EA) was unable to keep up with the growth. They
reported the number of registered voters as 4444. There were two
ballot styles, and the (EA) neglected to tell the election judge
about this. It took 3.5 hours to discover this omission, by which
time around 180 voters had been processed.

Hart InterCivic E-scan machines were failing at many polling places
due to poor scanner design and/or the use of felt tip pens with ink
that did not dry quickly enough. The scanner lens was picking up ink
and finally reached the point where ballots were being rejected.
Election judges had to open the device and clean the lens. God knows
how many ballots were read incorrectly before the machines ceased to
function at all.

Jerry Lobdill

OVC-discuss mailing list
= 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 23:17:07 2006

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