[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)



 
----- Original Message -----
 
Dear Devil,
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Piper
 
If there is a problem with the count totals between the AccuVote display and the ballots in the Ballot Box, why do you want to so quickly use it as an excuse? 
Jams are the only excuse we've got for these inconsistencies.  Remember that that the totals are being compared not just to the number of ballots in a ballot box, but the number of signatures on the roster as well - plus the ballots are numbered on the stub.  They know how many voters were given ballots and voted without too much doubt.
Really?  I've been to places where they innocently hand two ballots instead of one.  Or the voter walks out of the precinct with the ballot.  Or a poll worker is so stressed by how busy it is, he/she miscounts or forgets to write some details down.
What would you get from a jam event recordThat a jam happened? 
You get an explanation that human error was the factor and explanation for the discrepancy rather than "the AccuVote isn't counting" right.
 
But who was at fault: the poll worker or the machine? 
The Pollworker.  That's the whole point.  It gives you a chance to show that X number of times there was a potential that the pollworker didn't handle it correctly.
If the only perception by the election staff is that the pollworker is at fault, then more power to it.  If they start faulting the AccuVote, I'll direct all inquiries to you (as I usually do anyway, but that's beside the point).
I believe it is better to leave answers for these unsubstantiated anomalies to the discretion of the election supervisor.
That's why you're the Devil's very own advocate in McKinney!  But we like you anyway.
And I'm very cozy in my own little hell, thank you.
Outside of the "O" level ROMS, when a ballot is processed into a Ballot Box by the AccuVote, it is counted.  If a reader takes a ballot, it accurately scans that ballot and deposits it into the Ballot Box. 
Now you're damaging your own credibility by making these sweeping statements.
If you don't believe it, you're working for the wrong company or your not taking enough drugs.
If there is any problem with the reader (i.e., hung or failed Self Test), it will not process the ballot into the Ballot Box.
So even the Devil's team has strong degrees of faith.  I come more from the Kierkegaard side of the family, faith is a daily affair, and depends on the circumstance and the ROM level. 
You poor soul.
I can point to any number of "can't happen" events that turned out to be true (ballots being put in the emergency bin, and ending up in the write-in bin, passed ballots, etc.)
Now there's a potential container of earth boring insects you wouldn't want to explain.
But wait!  That may be the only explanation now that we can see there were no jams to cause the discrepancy.
Play out an election night scenario in your head with these kind of questions arising.  Now imagine there is nobody there from Global to explain the information provided.
It's my dream come true.
I guess it's every Global person's dream.  Imagine, a self sufficient customer.  Probably put some Global people out of job or allow them to do the job they were originally hired for.
Let's not consider every user's request as an absolute.  Perhaps the user is just as much in the dark about the ramifications of that request as we are.
The problem here is that I agree with the user, but not for the same reasons.  Jams are our friends guys.  They give us all kinds of room to explain things.  The problem comes more from the scenario where a Global person says, "Well, there were probably jams" and the pollworker can't remember whether there were or not.  Repeat after me, "J-A-M-S  A-R-E  G-O-O-D".
JAMS ARE, ARE, G... G... GO...,  DAMN!  I just can't say it!
 
As long as there is a sufficient number of jams recorded to explain the discrepancies, "they" are good, but if you have nothing recorded to explain the discrepancies, then you'd better have another viable explanation on hand.
 
Ian         (    )
              0 0
               U
________________________________________
Crashing is the only thing Windows does quickly.