Re: Enough recounts

From: <dr-jekyll_at_att_dot_net> Date: Thu Sep 27 2007 - 07:00:51 CDT · This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 23:17:20 CDT

--
Kurt 
This email sent using 100% 
recycled electrons.
-------------- Original message from Danny Swarzman <danny@stowlake.com>: -------------- 
> Debra Bowen sent a letter to ES&S specifying conditions under which 
> San Francisco may use their Eagle precinct scanners and IV-C central 
> scanners in the November elections. 
> 
> The precinct scanners are used to check for undervote/overvote, not 
> to count votes. 
> 
> Every ballot must be inspected by a person before being fed into the 
> central scanner. The person will determine if the ink is dark enough. 
> 
> There must be a manual recount of 10% of the precincts. 
> There must be a manual recount of 25% of the absentee ballots. 
> 
> She specifies more recounts in the case of the first revealing 
> discrepancies exceeding a threshold she indicates. 
> 
> If the central scanners are unreliable wouldn't a 2% recount reveal 
> the problem? 5%? Do we really need 10%. 
> 
> As they consider the problem, the Mayor and some others are seizing 
> the moment to prove that they should have gone with Sequoia. (The 
> Mayor seems oblivious to the fact that Sequoia doesn't have a machine 
> that is certified in CA that fulfills the SF requirement for Ranked 
> Choice Voting). 
> 
> I'm sorry if this ground about recount requirements has already been 
> discussed here. I would appreciate opinions. 
> 
> -Danny 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> OVC-discuss mailing list 
> OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net 
> http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss 
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the 
> content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted 
> material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at 
> http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/