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

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kewl beans Bob,

Looks like the test worked.
In Boulder which as predestined to have paper ballot ...
I sort of doubt that any of us would have known about the scanner/paper
misalignment problem in Boulder had their not been paper ballots.

Does anyone know of any other Colorado counties in which paper ballots
errored out on the scanners?

I'd say that it is important for us to find out, otherwise the defenders can
simply say the only Boulder had a problem and that it is not widespread.

sg

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mcgrath [mailto:mcgrath_mcnally@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 2:39 PM
To: jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx; someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: pshields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; morganr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; news@xxxxxxxx;
cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Improving the LAT (Re: Bad ballot markings)

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.
[|>] snip