Re: Nevada paper trails work without a hitch

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Sat Sep 25 2004 - 14:44:15 CDT

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:45:11 -0700, Alan Dechert
<> wrote:
> Charlie,
> > one interesting point: what happens if the records disagree? well
> > right now in nevada the laws are still the old laws (paper trails were
> > a gift from Dean Heller the SOS, not the legislature). So that means
> > the electronic ballot is THE ballot. But this could change now that
> > there have been no problems.
> McCormack confirms what I've suspected all along with the ballot-under-glass
> approach: "As other observers of both early voting and Nevada's election day
> have indicated, only a few voters (10-20%) looked at the printer...."

I've also heard that the time spent in the voting booth wasn't
significantly longer than before... which was one of the anti-VVP*[1]
arguments. However, that would mean more if the above percentage
wasn't so low. Although it is notable that no paper jams or other
types of mechanical failure gummed up the works.

[1] VVP* = my generic notation for any paper-based independent,
contemporaneous audit trail.

I think Nov. 2 will be a big test of this... Nevada will likely go
smoothly again, although there will be a higher voter turnout
(right?). We should keep a running list of counties using a VVP*
setups and try and get decent statistics on things like the above.
I've started to keep a list of county-specific information here
(please correct me or add to the list in the comments or via email to

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Thu Sep 30 23:17:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 23:17:11 CDT