[E-voting] experience with VVAT

Pierre Muller pmmaillists at free.fr
Sun Mar 26 02:26:47 IST 2006


Marian Beddill a écrit :
> The batch control was done (if I understand your question)
No, I was not accurate enough. Since the begining, I have a problem with
the word "tally", so I avoid using it. My dictionnary is confusing (does
a specialized dictionary about elections exist ?). I should have asked
before... Does "tallying" mean:
1) counting the votes, for example with an optiscan like Diebold
Accuvote OS,
2) adding up the results from several polling stations,
3) both ?

My question was about 2), where you can replace "polling stations" by
"batches".
I heard so many stories about GEMS, and I never really understood. In
France, main political parties collect results at the polling stations,
and do themselves additions, in parallel with the main election officer
(whose results are later checked by a commission).

We don't really have to care about security of either electronic
transmission of results, or transport of memory cards, since they have
no legal value. We don't have to care about security of electronic
additions. Only papers which poll workers sign (at the polling station,
just after counting the votes) are used. (It is possible because we
don't use STV).

Is the US system sometimes (in same places) weaker ?
In november 2005, in Quebec (Montreal and city of Quebec), these
independant additions were not possible.




 since the
> batches of ballots, out of or inside their boxes, were at all times
> through this (sampled) double-checking process kept in view of the crowd
> of staff and citizen observers from both political parties.  We saw them
> brought from the vault, opened on the tables in the
> conference-room-turned-handcount-center, saw them double-counted by
> staff, saw the tallies written down, saw them loaded back into the
> boxes, walked as a group with the staff carrying the boxes down the
> stairs, saw the "prox-lock" doors to the processing room be opened, saw
> the booting of the op-scan computers, saw them fed into the hopper of
> the counting scanners, saw the stacks out of the machines places back
> into boxes and sealed, saw the printout of the machine count and
> compared the numbers to the hand count tallies, and saw those sealed
> boxes move across the hall into the secure storage vault. 
> 
> This was done starting at the moment of the official closing of the
> polls - 8:PM on election day. (State law forbids counting ballots before
> the polls close.) 
> 
> The batches were the sets of ballots from three randomly-selected
> precincts, and one mutually-agreed contest - the selection having been
> done early that morning.
> 
> All of this was done, a great achievement I believe, by agreement
> between the two (otherwise very antagonistic) political parties and the
> elected Elections Officer (called, ironically, the County Auditor).  It
> ain't perfect, but we all agree that it has been done very well.
> 
> Marian Beddill


-- 
Pierre Muller
webmestre de http://www.recul-democratique.org
Citoyens critiques envers le vote électronique.




More information about the E-voting mailing list