Re: Improving the LAT (Re: Bad ballot markings)

["Robert Mcgrath" <mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx>]

yes, CFVI did recommend voting either on absentee or on provisional, on the 
basis that at least there would be a paper record in case of a need to do a 
recount.  Our caveat was to do at least a 1% automatic manual audit to 
ensure scanner accuracy.

> From: "Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: pshields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ryan Morgan" <morganr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,  
> "KGNU news" <news@xxxxxxxx>, cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  "LPBC Board" 
> <board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Improving the LAT (Re: Bad ballot markings)
> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 14:07:29 -0700
>
>
> I don't recall CVV having an official stance on that, although many 
> individual members may have expressed theirs. There was definitely a great 
> deal of discussion on the two organizations various mailings lists about 
> what to recommend as the "best" (most reliable for having your vote 
> counted) method, but I don't recall CVV having any group consensus effort 
> to state a position.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2004, at 1:25 PM, Some Guy wrote:
>
> > And yet CVV and CFVI encouraged voters to vote by absentee or provisional 
> > to
> > be on a paper ballot.
> >
> > sg
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > DREs are a problem for many Americans.  And in the US I think absentee
> > ballots are more dangerous even than DREs.
> >
> > Neal McBurnett
> > [|>] snip