Re: ES&S maintence costs skyrocket

From: Ginny Ross <ginnypdx_at_comcast_dot_net>
Date: Mon Nov 12 2007 - 18:24:24 CST

Arlene Montemarano wrote:
> Ginny, would you please tell me the position that the Oregon Voter
> Rights Coalition takes? I read your website and found it very
> informative, (especially about the EAC report), but I am not clear on
> exactly what system your group advocates for.
> Thanks.

Hi Arlene,

Well in a nutshell, Oregon is a 100% optical scan state using (mostly)
central count ES&S machines (M650's). We have advocated for a
scientific statewide random sample hand count verification of all
statewide races. Our legislative effort went well at first but our bill
was gut and stuffed at the last minute. Now we have a worse than
nothing "random sample of precincts" method along the lines of the Holt
bill. We could not stop it from being rubber stamped right through into
law. We will try to publish more info about this effort soon. As for
software, etc. we would like to launch an open source effort here in
Oregon, but our first priority was to get a verification law in place,
so we are still at step one. But even with open source (some day) we
believe a mandatory verification of the result to within a 1% margin of
error is still essential. I hope this helps.

Ginny Ross
Oregon VRC

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:19 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST