Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

Hi, Tara:  Does this give you a sense that your county seems to be
determined to make the best choices possible for the voters?  Sounds
like it to me.

Compare to one of the responses I received from Dan Burk, Registrar for
Nevada, recently:

"I do not agree with those who have become 'Jeremiads' regarding our
nation's attempt to modernize our systems for ballot tabulation.  I
believe there are adequate safeguards currently in place to ensure the
accuracy, reliability and integrity of our elections process and
specifically the systems we use to count ballots."

Unfortunately, he's talking about purchasing Sequoia or Diebold
paperless voting systems for the state of Nevada.  And, more curiously,
later referenced Nichols Laboratories as the authorized certification
company, which, as it turns out, ceased operations in November of 2000. 
One question that might be interesting, is to point out to the Registrar
for your county, that the question of possibly having computers print
out what the voter expects, but record an altered vote for election
purposes remains a troubling issue, and how does she feel about working
to increase the 1% hand count audit to a reasonable sampling that might
be more reflective of the actual vote tally?  If cost is a problem,
there's no reason not to encourage the formation of a citizens'
volunteer task force to figure out options to conduct a larger sampling
count.  Now, that's community, right?

It is beginning to look like your County might be able to put an "ideal"
electronic voting system in place for the rest of the country to model. 
What do you think?

Thanks,
Tom

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 18:44, Tara Treasurefield wrote:
> Hi, Tom --
> 
> I don't know how the County Registrar currently handles the needs of the 
> disabled. Maybe it doesn't. But I do know that they're looking at DREs in 
> order to meet HAVA requirements by 2006. They're specifically looking for 
> one that has both audio capability AND a paper-based audit system.
> 
> I also don't know how they handle provisional ballots. But I do know that 
> in 2002, over half the votes cast were cast by mail.
> 
> Best,
> Tara Treasurefield
> 
> At 06:19 PM 9/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi, Tara:  Bottom line:  Voter verified paper ballot for recount
> >purposes, and all the rest of the system can go in any direction it
> >wants.  Nice.
> >
> >Next question, how does your County Registrar handle the needs of the
> >disabled?  The issue there, is ease of use of the voting system, and in
> >particular, being able to get to the high standing voting booths, and
> >pushing a nice, flashy, touch screen.  They like that, as it helps more
> >of the disadvantaged to cast a private ballot.
> >
> >Finally, how does the state handle provision ballots.  People move from
> >place to place within the state, and this causes timing problems for
> >accurate county databases of who can vote, where.  So, how does your
> >County Registrar address the issue of provisional ballots?
> >
> >Thanks, Tom
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 13:45, Tara Treasurefield wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I just checked with our County Registrar. Yes, Mark A Vote produces a 
> > paper
> > > ballot, the voter confirms its accuracy, hands it to an elections worker
> > > (in a privacy envelope), who tears up the stub and deposits the ballot 
> > into
> > > a locked box. They do a 1% hand count normally, and in the case of a
> > > contested election, hand count the paper ballots. These days, that's 
> > pretty
> > > good, though I'd prefer an immediate post-election hand count of all the
> > > ballots.
> > >
> > > Tara
> > >
> > > At 10:37 AM 9/18/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >Hi, Tara:  As I understand it, the ballots are not used for public
> > > >scrutiny, in the sense that a physical recount is done with them, or
> > > >that they are audited by independent reviewers, in the event of a
> > > >contested contest.  Am I wrong?
> > > >Thanks, Tom
> > > >
> > > >On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 22:24, Tara Treasurefield wrote:
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > How does an optical scanner insult the voter's intelligence?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Tara
> > > > >
> > > > > At 08:00 PM 9/17/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > > >I sent a question to Gallup Poll contact thingy, asking about why 
> > > > > >poll
> > > > > >firms are so far off the money going into, then coming out of
> > > > > >elections.  Of course, we're interested in voter polling.  Gallup 
> > > > > >may
> > > > > >not do that topic/area.  I know nothing about it, but if this 
> > foulup on
> > > > > >polls keeps happening as dramatically as Georgia, Seattle, and 
> > possibly
> > > > > >others, then the list becomes onerous at some point.  Especially, 
> > if it
> > > > > >turns out there's a historical relationship to the advent of 
> > electronic
> > > > > >voting machines involved.  I envision a list of election upsets in 
> > > > > >one
> > > > > >column, and a list of electronic voting equipment in the other 
> > > > > >column,
> > > > > >and maybe a comparison statement about previous elections where 
> > > > > >poll
> > > > > >firms were within their stated margins of error.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But, first things first.  Let's see if poll firms can give some 
> > > > > >reason
> > > > > >to pursue the research  . . . . or, maybe they already have the
> > > > > >information we want?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Diebold and no paper voter-verified printout for recount.  Optical
> > > > > >scanner does nothing, absolutely nothing, other than to insult the
> > > > > >voter's intelligence.  What a shame!  What a waste of the voters' 
> > time!
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >Tom
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 19:33, Lcfranz70 AT aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Diebold Optical Scan, in King County
> > > > >
> > >
>