Re: Hand count or open source

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 09:50:29AM -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> It will be much more efficient to hash this out on the wiki site.
> It is already discussed there:
> 
> http://coloradovoter.net/moin.cgi/StatSampleHandCount
> 
> But people are confusing a "statistical sample" with an "audit".  I
> want an audit.  ANY discrepancy between the hand count and the machine ...

This comment is written without yet looking at the wiki.
The 1% sample is something that is done in California. It was started
*by the State election officials* because they wanted to have early
warning of defects in their system. Not because they were forced to
by citizens. They may have arranged to have it required by law, but
if so, that was done so that they could spend some money on it in
their budget, and do it right. But is a check by management on a system
that management wants to have working properly. Were the 1% check to show
problems, they have the option of a recount, and other methods of audit.

I'm sure the State officials in Calif. watch what happens in all the 
counties, and that their 1% is not chosen in truly random fashion between
counties. Within a county, truly random is the best way to find flaws and
a cover-up. It may not find it the first time, but if an election was
won by fraud, the perp. will need to do it again to achieve re-election,
and will eventually be caught.

In short, 1% random recount is a tool used by good management, not a
silver bullet solution to all election process problems. 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx