State Will Perform Manual Checks On V...

State Will Perform Manual Checks On Voting System -- Courant.com

There are 6 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Sep 14, 2007, titled State Will Perform Manual Checks On Voting System -- Courant.com. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

By picking names from a wooden box, the secretary of the state's office chose 11 voting precincts across the state Thursday to be audited to test the accuracy of the state's new electronic voting system.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

George Barnett

Plattsburgh, NY

#1 Sep 14, 2007
It is very positive that Connecticut has paper ballots to count and verify the accuracy of the voting machine. However, there is one fundamental flaw in this system.

The Secretary of the State's office, which is responsible for the voting system, also decides when to expand the audits and investigate when differences are found. Audits completed in 2006 uncovered many differences yet the Secretary of the State issued a press release stating that "it is now clear that the optical scan machines performed very well on Election Day and without any problems". For more information about the 2006 audits click on the following link.

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/index.php...

The state needs to appoint an independent board to administer the audits and to decide when to investigate and expand the manual counts. If audits uncover potential problems that are not examined any further, the overall system will be flawed.
Howard S -- Queens NY

United States

#2 Sep 14, 2007
If you want to audit elections, why not do it statistically! These ad hoc percentages are doing the voters of CT a disservice. They are ineffective in small races and inefficient in larger ones. And there is no reason to audit by "polling place" if there are 2 scanners at each one. This reduces the statistical power of the audit, without reducing the workload (not a good idea).

For more information, read:
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/audit...
JIMMY F

AOL

#3 Sep 15, 2007
THANK YOU THIS IS A VERY IMPORTENT COVERAGE OF AN IMPORTENT TOPIC DONE WELL
JIMMY F

AOL

#4 Sep 15, 2007
George Barnett wrote:
It is very positive that Connecticut has paper ballots to count and verify the accuracy of the voting machine. However, there is one fundamental flaw in this system.
The Secretary of the State's office, which is responsible for the voting system, also decides when to expand the audits and investigate when differences are found. Audits completed in 2006 uncovered many differences yet the Secretary of the State issued a press release stating that "it is now clear that the optical scan machines performed very well on Election Day and without any problems". For more information about the 2006 audits click on the following link.
http://www.ctvoterscount.org/index.php...
The state needs to appoint an independent board to administer the audits and to decide when to investigate and expand the manual counts. If audits uncover potential problems that are not examined any further, the overall system will be flawed.
I AGREE, A POLITICAL PERSON LIKE THE ELECTED SECRITARY OF STATE SHOULD NOT BE THE ONLY ONE CHOOSING WHAT POLLING PLACES TO AUDIT. BOTH A PARTISEN GROUP AND A NON PARTISEN GROUP SHOULD GET TO PICK EQUAL PORTIONS OF THE POLLING PLACES AS THE SECTRETAR OF STATE TO AUDIT. THE PARTISEN PEOPLE MAY HAVE SOME IDEAS ABOUT WHICH AREAS ARE MOST PRONE TO PARTISEN BIAS, E.G. THEIR COMPETITORS
JIMMY F

AOL

#5 Sep 15, 2007
Howard S -- Queens NY wrote:
If you want to audit elections, why not do it statistically! These ad hoc percentages are doing the voters of CT a disservice. They are ineffective in small races and inefficient in larger ones. And there is no reason to audit by "polling place" if there are 2 scanners at each one. This reduces the statistical power of the audit, without reducing the workload (not a good idea).
For more information, read:
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/audit...
I AGREE WITH BROOKLYN A RANDOM CHOICE OF WHAT POLLING PLACES TO AUDIT IS NECESSARY ALONG WITH THE SECRATERY OF STATES CHOICES. NON PARTICSIN
GROUP AND A COUPLE OF PARTISEN GROUPS WHO HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WHICH POLLING PLACES TO WATCH SHOULD ALSO GET TO PICK SOME POLLING PLACES TO AUDIT
James

Clearwater, FL

#6 Sep 17, 2007
it would be great to audit a larger number, or to have a minimum number of voters/ballots included in audit... this is at least a start on the right path to taking back our elections

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Manual Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News NIMH Won't Follow Psychiatry 'Bible' Anymore (May '13) May '13 HumanSpirit 2
News Fujifilm FinePix HS50 EXR (Jan '13) Feb '13 Hardware Clutch 3
News Skiers Having Patience Tested by Lame Snowpack (Jan '12) Jan '12 Dr_Zorderz 3
News Pacific communities benefit from coconut proces... (Oct '11) Oct '11 hello_04 1
News Can sexting be an illness? Experts are split (Jun '11) Jun '11 HumanSpirit 5
News Top Towns (Aug '10) Aug '10 Who Dunnit 2
News Chrysler owners' manuals go digital for 2010, s... (Sep '09) Sep '09 beerhunter 7
More from around the web