Audit improvements Re: CFVI (and others) meeting this Wed, Oct.1

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a previous committement, but here is input on one issue:

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 08:41:47PM -0600, Margit Johansson wrote:
> Possible agenda items:
> 4.  Discuss what to do about SOS conflict of interest in selecting  races to be
> audited in district he's running in, and fact that unobservable machine
> randomization might not satisfy the law which says it should be public

On the auditing front, I'm encouraged by the lengths that Hillary Hall
is going to get an meaningful audit of the election this year, based
on a full report of actual election results, despite how hard that is
to do with BallotNow.  There are many other improvements and
innovations as discussed here:

 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/elections/2008-boulder-primary-audit/ 
 
One of the biggest issues for us and others in the state contiues to
be the race/machine selection processs.  They keep selecting races in
the wrong county, or races for which there is no contest or not even
any candidate at all (some of the primary races).  And they select the
races and machines before the results are published.  Boulder got
approval to do a better audit but we need others to do the same.

That is the place I'd ask for more help - getting the SoS to delay
their random selections until after the results are published, or
letting the counties do their own public random selections, and
demanding that actual previously-published results are the ones that
are audited, not recounts.

Neal McBurnett                 http://mcburnett.org/neal/