You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #37: The point is that somehow election officials have the idea that a 3% audit [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. The point is that somehow election officials have the idea that a 3% audit
Edited on Wed Jan-30-08 11:38 PM by Bill Bored
is all they'll ever have to do if they go with optical scan.

This is what NYVV were selling, according to your own research.

When I say cut-and-drop VVPAT is just as auditable, I mean in terms of the workload on election officials. They dump the ballots on a table somewhere and count them. No paper rolls. Individual paper records. So why limit op scan audits to 3% just because most of the voters marked their ballots with pens?

For NYVV to suggest that somehow optical scanners will reduce the need to audit more than 3% of machines is ludicrous. If anything, they would increase the need because they have more ballots per machine than the DREs, and this leads to lower statistical confidence.

NYVV seem prepared to accept vote counts from software, as long as it's scanner software. So the question of what the first "V" stands for is a valid one. If it's really "Verified", then they need to define what that means. Seems to me they may only mean that the voter marked the ballot and "verified" it. That's nice but it doesn't get the votes counted as cast.

As far as the lever business, in 2007, the Legislature changed the law to remove any ambiguity. Now it says levers shall be replaced...someday. So what's the rush? And why is NYVV still saying they are illegal, even after the law was changed specifically to clarify the Legislature's intent?

The most prudent path, short of HCPB or levers forever, would seem to be open-source op scan, owned and operated by the citizens and government of the State of NY in the usual bi-/multi-partisan manner, with a real statistical audit so we don't have to trust that software either. If that takes another year or 2, or 3, so what? The Legislature and the Board of Elections have both said there's no hurry. The only ones in a rush are the DoJ, NYVV and of course, the vendors.

So why kowtow to the DoJ when the law is on our side if anyone would bother to go to court and argue it?

Innuendo aside, I said the jury's still out. Let's see what happens if nothing can be certified without changing existing hard-fought-for laws and regulations now that scanners are on the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC