RE: statistical sampling agenda

["Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach" <LPBC-O@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick,

These legal vagaries are what make law. You have a good start. If you leave
things open to interpretation, and then generally assume that all of the
interpreters on reading speak Esperanto, you are in for an unpleasant
surprise.

I think that for us to support a legislative agenda concerning statistical
hand count sampling of ballots to legal have bearing on electronic methods,
we need to craft precisely what is intended so we can all stand behind it.

To go to the statehouse with a vague idea of what you want to get in the way
of a bill will get you chopped liver.
We've got the brainy people here on this discussion list that can suss out
such wording. We can solve an issue for the entire state.
Let's get to it!

Paul Tiger -- Deputy Legislative Director of the Libertarian Party of
Colorado

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Bernstein [mailto:nicholas.bernstein@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:57 AM
To: Some Guy
Cc: Cvv-Discuss@Coloradovoter. Net; LPLD
Subject: Re: Hand count or open source

If you're talking about the legal wording, why do we have to mention the
technique at all? How about some vague wording like,

"A manual check of the primary count will be performed. This check
should provide X% confidence that the error rate is less than the
difference between the top two choices (as determined by the primary
count) or Y%, whichever is less." Where typical values for X and Y would
be 95 and 1.

N