Re: Hand count or open source

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:15AM -0700, Some Guy wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul E Condon [mailto:pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:41 PM
> <snip>
> 
> To me, it means that everyone agrees with me: The question was put in
> a confrontational way to which it was difficult to respond politely.
> [|>]
> [|>] Completely intentional. This group, as with many groups, is not of
> single mind or intent. Members tend to wander of is some rather unrelated
> directions rather quickly. If not for Bob and Paul W, we might be talking
> about recipes for salt-water taffy by now.
> [|>] ----
> 
> The use of hand count and machine count both have problems. Choosing the
> one that appears at the moment to have fewer problems seems unwise.
> The paper record of a hand count is hard to verify. In some ways it is
> like DRE, you do the count once. Where is the verification in that?
> In DRE, you do the count once, and print the results as many times as
> the law requires.
> [|>]
> [|>] What the C&R of our county did that they've called a hand count is
> really a hybrid.
> The ballots were scanned and the images stored. The images were then
> reviewed by humans, who directed attached computers to relate a particular
> image to what they decided the vote was on that ballot.
> 
> Had the barcodes all be readable and the serialization system worked, then
> each ballot with its tally would have been stored in the computer database
> so that each could be recalled.
> Most of people think that this is unimportant, but we want to show how each
> precinct voted for a number of reasons.
> 
> I am of the opinion that computer scanned counts of paper ballots are
> viable. I believe that we need to address the laws of this state that say
> that we are not permitted to do hand re-counts or verify computer counts
> with hand counts, or mix both methods.
> 
> Paul - I think that you are not going to find anyone on this list, or
> throughout any of the voter integrity groups, that has any confidence in
> DREs.
> 
> What I am looking for, and I think what everyone here is looking for are
> solutions. There's no need to re-hash all the horror stories of the past to
> prove to ourselves and each other that there is a need for new systems and
> methods. We all know what the bad stuff it, lets move on to solving the
> problems.
> 
> Some Guy who wants to dwell in the positive
> 

But the negatives are where the nasty surprises are found. They should be
discussed before they bite you.

As to the choise presented, I have no confidence in a system that is badly
run, regardless of the technology in use. 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx