Re: Nevada paper trails work without a hitch

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Sun Sep 26 2004 - 13:34:38 CDT

On Sep 25, 2004, at 11:45 AM, Alan Dechert wrote:

>
> Dan Tokaji posted Conny McCormack's comments on his blog SEP 16.
> http://equalvote.blogspot.com/
>
> 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...."

See my notes in:

    http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/nist2004supp.shtml
    Douglas W. Jones Comments on the EAC TGDC Testimony

If we can get 10% to 20% to check their ballot, the assurance this
gives us is incredibly stronger than California's 1% mandatory manual
recount. In fact, as the folks at Vote Here have shown with their
math, it's significantly stronger than a 10% to 20% mandatory manual
recount. Therefore, we should consider this number a real success!

> Whatever the exact percentage, I predict it will go down over time.

This is why it's so important to mention the terrible human factors
problems with the Sequoia system.

> The big problem with DREs is over time, like 5 to 10 years from now.
> If
> they become prevalent and voters learn to trust them, look out.

I agree.

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= 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 23:17:09 2004

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