serial numbers, revisited

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:02:10PM -0700, Some Guy wrote:
> Same with me. Ballots handed out in order.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:15 PM
> What I did notice is that the ballots are being given out in sequential
> order.

I'd like to know some more details, and how you verified this.  For
example, at my precinct, the ballot judge cut the deck several times,
and/or pulled a random one from the pile, so there would be only short
runs of sequential ballots at best.

Did you see just one or two that seemed in order, or did you have some
way of actually verifying a very long sequence of numbers?

For the primary, the manual for election judges said to cut the deck
or randomize ballots.  The manual for this election left that out.
After the trial, in front of at least two reporters, I asked Linda
Salas if the final instructions for pollworkers (handed out to supply
judges with their packets) would include instructions to cut the deck
or randomize ballots like the instructions for the primary did.  She
told me she agreed that they should, and that they would.  They did
not.  Very frustrating....

But after looking at lots of aspects of this, I think that even so it
would be very very hard, and of course illegal, to actually get even
undocumentable information about how any significant number of people
voted, even given inside help.

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60