Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 19:55:51 CST

At 4:34 PM -0800 11/30/06, Ginny Ross wrote:
>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
>It would sure be nice of course, to have both. But how would it fly
>politically and economically?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.

If you don't use PCOS with hand marked ballots, you can't check for
overvotes. That's one thing that HAVA now requires and I think it
will be hard to justify to the Congresspeople that make the decisions
giving that up for HCPB.

Best regards,

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
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 23:17:18 2006

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