Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 20:15:18 CST

At 4:55 PM -0800 11/30/06, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > 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.
>Ginny, I highly recommend that you go back and read relevant discussions on
>this topic. It's not quite either/or as you imply with your question. With
>the ballot printer design, the summary paper ballot is the fundamental
>representation of the vote. You also have the electronic record in the form
>of electronic ballot images (EBIs). The "count of record" as you put it,
>comes from a mechanized tally arrived at by running the paper ballots
>through a scanner. The tally is verified by checking against the EBIs
>(software routine) AND by spot checks by hand. Ordinarily, a complete hand
>count would not be necessary. If hand spot checks reveal a problem or the
>electronic record (the EBIs) was somehow lost, then a complete hand count
>might be needed.
>If the system is well designed and implemented, a complete hand count should
>never be needed. Unlike handmarked ballots, there should never be any voter
>intent issues with computer generated summary paper ballots.

I agree with Alan except that a complete hand count would likely
still be used for a recount.

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