RE: Hand count or open source

["Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Statistical sampling is a good idea. Neal proposed 1%. I think that's far
too small.

As Ralph pointed out, it is where the sampling occurs that is important. All
1700 ballot in BC pulled from one spot? A handful pulled from random
batches? I don't see how that effectively tests much.

If statistical sampling happens, then who would care to propose how it is
performed.

I have close up and personal knowledge of how laws are made in our state.
Before we run off to find a legislator to author a bill we'll need to
propose some kind of plan. We can't just make it up as we go, or have the
legislature pass some non-descript bill based on the idea that we will
figure it out later. Worst would be getting the general assembly to pass a
ballot verification bill and then let the SoS and the C&R figure out how to
do things.

Please - lets get the thinkers together and think up an plan. Government has
no plan. We are the government.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Eberle [mailto:m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:02 PM
To: Some Guy
Cc: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hand count or open source

I support computer counts backed up by statistical sampling and full
hand counts if necessary, which is to say that I think we need to make
our first goal to change the Colorado law that stands in the way of
such a rational, modern approach.

Mary
[|>]