Angry

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...
Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt

True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the paper
ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.

[...] It appears
there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process.

As long as human beings are involved at any part of the process, there will
be the potential for fraud. The problem is that currently, the potential
for fraud is VASTLY higher than it should be.

The only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Indeed. So, let's do that thing.

Pete

Hand counting a sample proves nothing as you can't assume the identical
distribution of votes in the uncounted votes.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the
paper ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.

"sfb" wrote in message news:sSXsf.9913$Q73.2199@trnddc03...
Hand counting a sample proves nothing

I never said it "proves" anything.

as you can't assume the identical distribution of votes in the uncounted
votes.

Who would make such an assumption? Why would you? What point in making
such an assumption would there be?

George and Al are tied with 100 electronic votes each. You count a
sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5. Other than Al won
the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
the total vote.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"sfb" wrote in message
news:sSXsf.9913$Q73.2199@trnddc03...
Hand counting a sample proves nothing

I never said it "proves" anything.

as you can't assume the identical distribution of votes in the
uncounted votes.

Who would make such an assumption? Why would you? What point in
making such an assumption would there be?

"sfb" wrote in message news:Nj3tf.8766$3Y3.2508@trnddc02...
[...] you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of the
total vote.

So what? The random audit isn't intended to tell you anything "about the
correctness of the total vote.

Please explain what "auditing" a sample of the paper receipts
establishes since the only thing that matters is the total votes cast
for each candidate.

An election isn't a production line making a gazillion identical widgets
per day where sampling will tell you something about meeting
specifications. A election produces a different product for each
candidate on the ballot. The only way to know how many votes each
candidate got is counting every single vote.

Early in the day 2004 exit polls predicted a Kerry win only to be proven
wrong by the actual votes since the sampling was apparently biased to
only asking Kerry voters.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"sfb" wrote in message
news:Nj3tf.8766$3Y3.2508@trnddc02...
[...] you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
the total vote.

So what? The random audit isn't intended to tell you anything "about
the correctness of the total vote.

You count a
sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5. Other than Al won
the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
the total vote.

Right. Then you compare the paper sample to the electronic sample and
find that Al is ahead 12-8 in the electronic sample. You now know,
which you didn't before, that the voting is rigged (or busted). Had the
tallys matched, you would have more confidence than before that the
voting was fairly counted electronically, and could trust the other
electronic tallys.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

How do you sample a counter with the total vote cast for a candidate?

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
You count a sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5.
Other than Al won the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing
about the correctness of the total vote.

Right. Then you compare the paper sample to the electronic sample and
find that Al is ahead 12-8 in the electronic sample. You now know,
which you didn't before, that the voting is rigged (or busted). Had
the tallys matched, you would have more confidence than before that
the voting was fairly counted electronically, and could trust the
other electronic tallys.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.