Dual method

[Nicholas Bernstein <bernsten@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Neal McBurnett wrote:

> I don't accept the notion that hand-marked ballots, when counted by
> optical scanners, has anything like a 3-5% error rate.  And
> ballot-marking-machine ballots should have a much lower rate than
> hand-marked ballots.  Do you have references?  I think the Caltech/MIT
> study has these sorts of numbers, and I mean to look at it at some
> point....
>  
Does anyone have these stats handy?

> It seems to introduce more complication than necessary, and would be a
> headache for election officials to deal with.
>  
I don't follow. Having a unique ballot ID is incredibly simple. And it 
allows unprecidented accuracy. What, specificially, do you think the 
'headache' would be?

> I still prefer hand-marked ballots for most folks, and
> ballot-marking-machines for accessibility
Why two separate methods? If ballot-marking (or recount 
receipts--essentially the same thing) is good enough for handicapped 
voters, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?