I wonder how the difference between counts (or counting methods) looks
distributed by precinct?  Have those numbers been published?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stigers, Greg [And] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 1:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: Anatomy of a screw-up
>
>
> X-no-Archive:yes
> I question this interpretation.
>
> Suppose for a moment that you are that custodian, and you count some
> results, and find that they differ from the machine. What
> would one of your
> first actions be? I assume that pretty quickly, you would
> count again. Now,
> there are some counting techniques that can be used to ensure
> the accuracy
> of the manual account, by assuming its inaccuracy. That is to
> say, should
> you question your manual count, certain techniques would allow you to
> isolate any error to some small and easily countable subset
> of the thing
> counted. One obvious example is counting money, where some
> number of coins
> or bills are grouped together, and can quickly and easily be
> recounted, so
> that if you come up one short, you can find that one set of
> coins or bills
> actually only has ninety-nine pieces and not one hundred as
> your first count
> indicated.
>
> However, machines fail, get out of calibration, and so on. Or
> some bright
> fellow decides that the stock that the ballots are printed
> from can be of a
> substantially different weight than that specified. So, I
> certainly see the
> validity in double checking a representative sample of the
> machine-counted
> ballots by human effort, as an audit check, without
> necessarily implying
> that hand counts are de facto more accurate. They are just
> another means to
> the same end, otherwise the one could not be used to validate
> the other.
>
> Of course, if the machines are inaccurate, repeating the
> machine count on a
> representative sample should also show this inaccuracy. I
> understand from
> broadcast news that Bush is asking for machine recounts. If
> these cannot
> agree twice in a row, then somebody has some explaining to do.
>
> Greg Stigers
> http://www.cgiusa.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob J. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:52 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: OT: Anatomy of a screw-up
>
>  If I am interpreting 331 correctly, Texas law is declaring manual
> counting
> to be more accurate and to be used to validate electronic voting.
> <snip>
>