Re: [LPCO] Elections Alert: Watchdog says five days isn't enough time

["Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>]

While you're reading HAVA, don't forget this gem that was also  
apparently overlooked or misread:

HAVA Error Rate Requirement:
HAVA 301(a)(5)
(5) Error rates.--The error rate of the voting system in counting  
ballots (determined by taking into
account only those errors which are attributable to the voting system  
and not attributable to an act
of the voter) shall comply with the error rate standards established  
under section 3.2.1 of the voting
systems standards issued by the Federal Election Commission which are  
in effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Section 3.2.1 of the Voting System Standards
http://www.eac.gov/election_resources/v1/v1s3.doc
"For each processing function indicated above, the system shall  
achieve a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot  
positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process  
of one in 500,000 ballot positions."


[Note that the pre-election testing before the '05 election found  
that the system Boulder County purchased with HAVA funds has a  
demonstrated and documented error rate of 7 in 5,577 (seven in five  
thousand five hundred seventy seven) ballot positions, orders of  
magnitude worse than the HAVA mandated legal requirement.]

Joe






On Dec 28, 2005, at 3:30 AM, Some Guy wrote:

> I'm not a proponent of hand counts, but I am 1000% against DRE and  
> that is
> what this RFP is about. Salas wants the public and the BoCC to  
> believe that
> BC will be in violation of HAVA should we not make purchases of more
> electronic gadgetry now. She's not dwelling on DRE, but its there.
>
> Joe made a recent posting showing a section of HR3295 (HAVA) that  
> tells all
> who will bother to read it that systems for disabled voters may be  
> purchased
> on or after Jan 2007. If you have a printed version, you can find  
> this on
> page 99.
> ====
> Section 301(a)(3)(C) says:
>
> (3) Accessibility for individuals with disabilities.--The voting  
> system
> shall
>
> (C) if purchased with funds made available under title II on or after
> January 1, 2007, meet the voting system standards for disability  
> access (as
> outlined in this paragraph).
> =====
>
> "ON OR AFTER" - what part of this did Linda not read, or suspect  
> that we
> couldn't read? <thanks Joe>
>
> What's the rush to DRE?
> Or what's the rush in general? How bad would it be to have the  
> election
> tally take 63 hours if it is accurate? Heck, if we hand tallied the  
> ballots
> it might take that long or longer. Fast food; fast cars; fast  
> elections???
>
> Some Guy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bo [mailto:bs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 11:07 AM
> To: ralphs@xxxxxxxxx; CVV; lpboulder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> lpco-chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [LPCO] Elections Alert: Watchdog says five days isn't  
> enough
> time
>
> They can't wait.....
> the next election is practically here.....9 months and counting.
>
> I'd suggest putting together a prioritized list of requirements for  
> a Voting
> System.
> One page.....
>
> For example...
> IMHO.....number one is paper trail. There *has* to be a way to  
> recount the
> actual vote.
> number two might just be HAVA Compliant....gotta meet Federal  
> requirements.
> And so on.....
>
> Put a list together, and have everyone prioritize it.
> Take the sum of the priorities, and submit the list to the Clerk on
> Wednesday.
> No huge tome of demands or long winded rants.....just a Citizens  
> Requirement
> List for Holding Elections with Confidence.
>
> In areas of extreme complexity, little time and limited  
> manpower.....KISS
> can make a workable solution....;-)
> Whadya think?
> (THIMK!)
>
> Bo