Enough recounts

From: Danny Swarzman <danny_at_stowlake_dot_com>
Date: Wed Sep 26 2007 - 19:51:00 CDT

Debra Bowen sent a letter to ES&S specifying conditions under which
San Francisco may use their Eagle precinct scanners and IV-C central
scanners in the November elections.

The precinct scanners are used to check for undervote/overvote, not
to count votes.

Every ballot must be inspected by a person before being fed into the
central scanner. The person will determine if the ink is dark enough.

There must be a manual recount of 10% of the precincts.
There must be a manual recount of 25% of the absentee ballots.

She specifies more recounts in the case of the first revealing
discrepancies exceeding a threshold she indicates.

If the central scanners are unreliable wouldn't a 2% recount reveal
the problem? 5%? Do we really need 10%.

As they consider the problem, the Mayor and some others are seizing
the moment to prove that they should have gone with Sequoia. (The
Mayor seems oblivious to the fact that Sequoia doesn't have a machine
that is certified in CA that fulfills the SF requirement for Ranked
Choice Voting).

I'm sorry if this ground about recount requirements has already been
discussed here. I would appreciate opinions.


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 http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sun Sep 30 23:17:17 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 23:17:20 CDT