Re: suggested proposals for federal election integrity legislation

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 20:27:34 CST

At 5:31 PM -0800 11/30/06, Ginny Ross wrote:
>Alan Dechert wrote:
>
>>Ginny, I highly recommend that you go back and read relevant
>>discussions on this topic.
>Hi Alan,
>
>I will do it -- shall I go to the archive and do a word search or
>the like? In any case, your explanation helped. I'm a little
>unclear on what a summary paper ballot is, though. Does this mean
>I can't bubble in my own bubbles anymore? This will be a tough row
>to hoe in Oregon, where we like bubbling our own bubbles as much as
>we like our craft microbrews.
>Side question, when are you going to DC? We at the Oregon VRC are
>preparing bake sales and car washes, so let us know when the trip is
>planned! Seriously, this looks like a fantastic opportunity for
>you and we support the effort whole-heartedly. We will do what we
>can.
>
>>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).
>This is where the paper goes through the scanner and the EBI's are
>created as a digital record? Will this be an option too for those
>of us who won't give up our hand bubbled ballots?
>
>>The "count of record" as you put it, comes from a mechanized tally
>>arrived at by running the paper ballots through a scanner.
>Tallied by OS software, of course, right?
>
>>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.
>>
><http://tinyurl.com/y2vvsb>The system would work well with a hand
>count sample audit procedure as well, it seems. Thanks for the
>explanation.
>By the way, there is an interesting discussion about federal
>election legislation, hand counting, opscanning, and other juicy
>stuff over at the EI Leg list, so I would like to invite anyone
>interested to come on over. :-) Click the pic >>>>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ginny Ross
>Oregon VRC

Check the papers at http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/keller and click
on Electronic Voting.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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