Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Ginny Ross <Ginnypdx_at_comcast_dot_net>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 18:34:39 CST

Arthur Keller wrote:

>On another note, I am wondering what people on this list think about
>all paper ballots (either hand-marked or computer-marked or
>-printed); in-precinct cast ordinary ballots (not provisional, not
>absentee) are scanned by in-precinct optical scan and then a
>confirming hand count is made at the close of polls. The optical
>scanner checks for blank ballots and overvotes.
>
>The hand-count tally is a check on the computer tally and vice-versa.
>
>
Arthur, is the hand-count a full count or a sampling? Speaking as a
lawyer, I can see where there would be a battle over primacy. Would one
of the counts be the 'count of record'? Seems that if the hand count
is the count of record, why even bother with all the machinery. Also,
if the machine count is the count of record, why do a full hand count as
well.

It would sure be nice of course, to have both. But how would it fly
politically and economically?

Thanks,

Ginny
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:18 2006

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