|
----- Original Message -----
Dear Devil,
----- Original Message -----
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 record? That 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.
|