Angry

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.

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

You don't. You sample the votes to see if they agree. That is, you
compare the electronically reported tally of a set of voting machines
with the mechanical (paper?) ballots corresponding to that same set of
voting machines. It doesn't matter who is ahead or behind, just that
the paper and electronic ones match.

If they don't match, something's wrong.

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

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:37:22 GMT, Jose
wrote:

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

You don't. You sample the votes to see if they agree. That is, you
compare the electronically reported tally of a set of voting machines
with the mechanical (paper?) ballots corresponding to that same set of
voting machines. It doesn't matter who is ahead or behind, just that
the paper and electronic ones match.

If they don't match, something's wrong.


Yah, it means they are a different deomgraphic. Those casting paper
ballots are most likely different. I'd be surprised to see a strong
correlation between the two.


Roger


Jose
Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...
Yah, it means they are a different deomgraphic. Those casting paper
ballots are most likely different. I'd be surprised to see a strong
correlation between the two.

You are not paying attention.

*Everyone* gets a paper ballot. They get it when they complete their
electronic ballot, which they use to verify their vote was recorded
correctly before the turn the paper ballot back into the elections staff.
Those paper ballots are then used later to audit the electronic ballot.

There's no demographic difference. Everyone who votes is handled the same
way.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:41:58 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
Yah, it means they are a different deomgraphic. Those casting paper
ballots are most likely different. I'd be surprised to see a strong
correlation between the two.

You are not paying attention.

*Everyone* gets a paper ballot. They get it when they complete their
electronic ballot, which they use to verify their vote was recorded
correctly before the turn the paper ballot back into the elections staff.
Those paper ballots are then used later to audit the electronic ballot.


Yah mean we gotta teach 'em how to use the machine, how to use the
paper ballott, and get them to do the same thing on both? So far we
aren't batting very well on just one.

There's no demographic difference. Everyone who votes is handled the same
way.

That gives them two places to screw up and a thrid one to complain
about:-))

Roger


Roger

"Roger" wrote in message
...
Yah mean we gotta teach 'em how to use the machine, how to use the
paper ballott, and get them to do the same thing on both? So far we
aren't batting very well on just one.

Well, there is that. Those in favor of electronic voting machines claim
they are easier, and would eliminate hanging chads (etc.) Are those people
right? I don't know. It's certainly true that better idiots always come
along to defeat idiot-proof devices. You have a point.

That gives them two places to screw up and a thrid one to complain
about:-))

Yup. Personally, I never found the whole "fill in the circle" thing all
that difficult. But there certainly have been some fiascos related to that
ballot type, as well as others (like the "punch the hole" type).

Maybe we just need a whole new type of fiasco, 'cause people are getting
bored with the old kind?

Pete

Yah mean we gotta teach 'em how to use the machine, how to use the
paper ballott, and get them to do the same thing on both?

No, you teach them how to use the electronic machine, which prints a
paper ballot with their choices already filled in. They verify this,
put it in the chute, and exit.

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

If they don't match, something's wrong.

Yah, it means they are a different deomgraphic.

No, the paper receipts would be from the SAME MACHINE as the electronic
tally. They would be duplicates. They MUST match, or there is
something wrong.

I was not (and nobody was) suggesting that we compare one polling place
with another to assure validity. That would be absurd.

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