RE: Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?

["Pete Klammer" <pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.vote.caltech.edu/Reports/report1.pdf

A Preliminary Assessment of the Reliability of
Existing Voting Equipment
The Caltech/MIT Voting Project
Version 1: February 1, 2001

"Careful statistical analysis shows that there are systematic differences
across these technologies, and that paper ballots, optical scanning devices
and lever machines have significantly lower residual voting rates than punch
card systems and DREs."

"Paper ballots, lever machines, and optically scanned ballots produce lower
residual vote rates on the order of one to two percent of all ballots cast
over punch card and electronic methods over the last four presidential
elections."

"We also wish to call attention to the excellent performance of the
optically scanned ballots, the best performing of the newer methods, and
especially to the older methods of voting - lever machines and paper
ballots."

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Daniel Ravitz [mailto:evan@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:15 PM
To: Joe Pezzillo
Cc: delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; texico86@xxxxxxx; davide475@xxxxxxxx;
david.ellington@xxxxxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxx;
michelle.mulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Robert
Mcgrath; peter.raich@xxxxxxxx; mlambie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
TresCeeA@xxxxxxx; tahommel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx; PKlammer@xxxxxxx; AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?


If I remember right, scanning systems were even slightly more
accurate than hand counting, which was 2nd.

Evan

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Joe Pezzillo wrote:

>
> Bo-
>
> Strange though it may sound in this day and age of putting high-tech
> spacecraft on Mars, didn't the CalTech/MIT study find that hand counted
> paper ballots were the most accurate? Some technologies endure for a
> reason, right? I'd vote for some new energy technology before new
> elections technology, personally.
>
> Do you support the idea of a statistically valid sample hand-count to
> verify the machines?
>
> In either event, I agree that it is crucial to get more people involved
> in our elections.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Apr 7, 2004, at 11:26 AM, delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > All this "hand" counting and "hand" marking.......
> > Does it strike anyone else as a pretty Luddite type of stance??
> >
> > how about coming up with *constructive* ways to make technology work
> > *for*
> > us rather than agin' us?
> > I fail to see where a buncha tired, retired and unemployed people (the
> > volunteers who would be doing the hand counting after polls close)
> > would be
> > more accurate than an impartial machine scanner.
> > *That* should be the focus........moving us into the future with
> > secure,
> > verifiable and accurate technology.
> > NOT returning us to technology of 200 years ago.
> >
> > Bo
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Mcgrath" <mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <evan@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: <AlKolwicz@xxxxxxxxx>; <cmehesy@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <davide475@xxxxxxxx>;
> > <david.ellington@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <donna@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>;
> > <mlambie@xxxxxxxxx>; <mlambie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <texico86@xxxxxxx>;
> > <peter.raich@xxxxxxxx>; <TresCeeA@xxxxxxx>;
> > <michelle.mulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <tahommel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <PKlammer@xxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:18 AM
> > Subject: Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?
> >
> >
> >> Evan,
> >>
> >> I appreciate your commitment to the simplest possible solution, and
> >> one
> > that
> >> is demonstrably considered the most effective by the authors of the
> >> Cal
> >> Tech/MIT study on voting systems.
> >>
>