[internetworkers] Are You Registered To Vote At YourCurrentAddress? Register Online!
merlin180 at hotmail.com
Wed Aug 6 14:10:30 EDT 2008
>>> That's one of the reasons I really like the optical scan ballots that
>>> they use in Durham County.
Actually, now that you mentioned it, there are several things about the
initial physical process I've often wondered about - maybe you can educate
Assuming Durham's process is the same:
The reading machines look like giant shredders - an unfortunate
The ballot page itself is a series of small roundish boxes that the
voter fills in to indicate their intent
The ballot is placed in the reader, which whirs for a bit, increments a
counter on the front, and drops the ballot into the hopper
The voter collects their 'I voted' sticker and leaves
The counter appears to indicate a ballot was received but beyond that, what
checks are in place to ensure that the machine:
- read a *valid* ballot (would it spit it back out if it detected
something inconsistent like 2 votes where there should only be one ?)
- correctly interpreted the voter's intent ? - AFAIK the voter gets no
feedback as to what the machine 'saw' on the page - maybe a bent ballot or
something else caused a misread
- increments the correct totals ? (e.g. something like open kimono code
- Ditto the downstream hardware/software
The random manual recounts you mention might catch some issues - at least
for the machines that were recounted:
What percentage of ballots/machines/stations/districts are randomly
recounted, and how random is it. ?
Do such recounts ever *exactly* match the machine numbers ?
What happens if random recount indicates a "significant" disparity with
the machine totals - does the recount widen ?
From: "Tanner Lovelace" <clubjuggler at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:02 PM
To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/"
<internetworkers at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Are You Registered To Vote At
YourCurrentAddress? Register Online!
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:17 PM, David Minton <dminton at mindspring.com>
>> While not intentional, there was that very public "oops" in NC in 2004
>> which votes were not "counted accurately:"
>> "More than 4,500 North Carolina votes lost because of mistake in voting
>> machine capacity"
>> If I recall, at least one state-wide office was decided by a few hundred
>> votes, and might have had a different outcome if those votes had not been
> Excellent point, David! And, one that I had actually forgotten about.
> One good thing, though, that came out of this debacle was that it
> really drove home the point that paperless balloting systems are
> just problems waiting to happen. That's one of the reasons I really like
> the optical scan ballots that they use in Durham County. An error like
> that simply couldn't happen because if it did you'd just go back to the
> original ballots and count them by hand.
> Tanner Lovelace
> (fieldless) In fess two roundels in pale, a billet fesswise and an
> increscent, all sable.
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
More information about the InterNetWorkers