[E-voting] optically scanned votes - setting sensitivity levels

[Catherine Ansbro]

http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=4740

Printer says ballots bear partial blame

Maintains most of fault lies with the new voting system

<snip>
According to Harris, EagleDirect first became aware of a problem two 
days after the election when the printing on some ballots appeared too 
light, too dark or was smudged.

While those printing errors were obvious, many ballots were rejected by 
the machines as damaged initially for unclear reasons, he said. Harris 
said that after further review, it was determined the location of the 
boxes voters filled in was off slightly on these damaged ballots.

Quoting a Hart engineer, Harris explained that the Hart voting systems 
has a tolerance of plus or minus 20 percent, meaning the ballot scanner 
could compensate for movement of the boxes by no more than 20 percent, a 
tolerance Harris characterized as unreasonable.

"The great majority of ballots rejected could have been read if the 
tolerances were loosened," he said.

Presenting a collection of 54 ballots from the election that were tested 
three times on the county's system earlier this month, EagleDirect's 
chief operating officer Bill Schaefer said the Hart system's tolerance 
was so tight that 32 ballots were rejected in one or more scans. Of 
those 32, 24 were rejected because of defects that appeared on different 
locations on the ballot after each scan.

<snip>

This is something to be aware of if we were recommending an optical scan 
method
Catherine