Comments on: Election Day "Receipts" http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/ Champaign County Clerk Blog Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:09:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/comment-page-1/#comment-114 Anonymous Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:44:00 +0000 http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/#comment-114 As elaborated by anonymous, I think that this is an excellent idea and should be pursued. I would also like to have the results of this "check" posted on the website. As elaborated by anonymous, I think that this is an excellent idea and should be pursued. I would also like to have the results of this “check” posted on the website.

]]> By: Bob http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/comment-page-1/#comment-113 Bob Wed, 10 May 2006 17:58:00 +0000 http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/#comment-113 Mark, it is a good idea. As an election judge for Ludlow 2, any ideas which can help hard-working judges are appreciated. In a non-partisan comment: You have served effectively and well, and it is an honor to be an election judge for Champaign County.<br/><br/>Bob Menge<br/>Rantoul (judge in Ludlow 2) Mark, it is a good idea. As an election judge for Ludlow 2, any ideas which can help hard-working judges are appreciated. In a non-partisan comment: You have served effectively and well, and it is an honor to be an election judge for Champaign County.

Bob Menge
Rantoul (judge in Ludlow 2)

]]> By: Champaign County Clerk http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/comment-page-1/#comment-112 Champaign County Clerk Fri, 05 May 2006 02:42:00 +0000 http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/#comment-112 Thanks for a great post. The six precincts will be picked by the State Board of Elections. We will have no ability to avoid larger precincts. We'll just hope that they are moderately sized.<br/><br/>Any discrepancies will be available for perusal. I'm confident that the only potential problem, and one which I've seen, is when a voter uses and X or check mark. If that causes a change in any total, that would be available for someone to use in a discovery but would not officially change a result.<br/><br/>The key in my mind will be that any discrepancy can be explained. Any discrepancy that can't be explained needs to be investigated. <br/><br/>We had a high success rate on the hand counts for the six precincts in County Board district 9. When you are just focusing on one race, and two others are with you, it helps. I would imagine that we would use a similar procedure this fall.<br/><br/>Thanks for your input. It sounds like this idea has at least one Yes vote. Thanks for a great post. The six precincts will be picked by the State Board of Elections. We will have no ability to avoid larger precincts. We’ll just hope that they are moderately sized.

Any discrepancies will be available for perusal. I’m confident that the only potential problem, and one which I’ve seen, is when a voter uses and X or check mark. If that causes a change in any total, that would be available for someone to use in a discovery but would not officially change a result.

The key in my mind will be that any discrepancy can be explained. Any discrepancy that can’t be explained needs to be investigated.

We had a high success rate on the hand counts for the six precincts in County Board district 9. When you are just focusing on one race, and two others are with you, it helps. I would imagine that we would use a similar procedure this fall.

Thanks for your input. It sounds like this idea has at least one Yes vote.

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/comment-page-1/#comment-111 Anonymous Fri, 05 May 2006 00:54:00 +0000 http://blog.champaigncountyclerk.com/2006/05/04/election-day-receipts/#comment-111 That sounds like a great way to bolster confidence in the optical scan machines, always verifying it with a hand count of a few precincts done by party representatives.<br/><br/>If I understand your plan, you will pick two precincts randomly, and the parties will each pick any race from each of the two (resulting in a total of six races). Rather than have each party count the races they picked, you may want to have all three parties count all six of the resulting races. This gives you a 3-way check on the hand count (which is more error prone than the machines) and makes sure that you don't get in a situation where one party rep notices a discrepancy in "their" race, but keeps quiet if the discrepancy isn't in their favor. In a big precinct I can easily see it taking a couple of go-arounds to get the hand counts to match, due to human error. If that's too many votes to count, let the parties each pick a race in each precinct, and then randomly choose which one of the three choices gets counted in the first precinct, then randomly pick one of the other parties' choice in the second precinct.<br/><br/>Another idea: when you randomly pick the two precincts, you might want to pick one from among the 50% of precincts with the most votes, and one from among the 50% of the precincts with the least votes, just to make sure you don't end up with two huge-turnout precincts (a lot of work to count) or two tiny-turnout precincts (not good statistical validation).<br/><br/>I assume you'll publish the results of the hand counts (or at least a statement that they matched) along with the official election results. What will you do if there's a discrepancy? Will you just note it and move on, and let a candidate ask for a recount if they want one, or is there some defined process that you will follow if you find a problem? That sounds like a great way to bolster confidence in the optical scan machines, always verifying it with a hand count of a few precincts done by party representatives.

If I understand your plan, you will pick two precincts randomly, and the parties will each pick any race from each of the two (resulting in a total of six races). Rather than have each party count the races they picked, you may want to have all three parties count all six of the resulting races. This gives you a 3-way check on the hand count (which is more error prone than the machines) and makes sure that you don’t get in a situation where one party rep notices a discrepancy in “their” race, but keeps quiet if the discrepancy isn’t in their favor. In a big precinct I can easily see it taking a couple of go-arounds to get the hand counts to match, due to human error. If that’s too many votes to count, let the parties each pick a race in each precinct, and then randomly choose which one of the three choices gets counted in the first precinct, then randomly pick one of the other parties’ choice in the second precinct.

Another idea: when you randomly pick the two precincts, you might want to pick one from among the 50% of precincts with the most votes, and one from among the 50% of the precincts with the least votes, just to make sure you don’t end up with two huge-turnout precincts (a lot of work to count) or two tiny-turnout precincts (not good statistical validation).

I assume you’ll publish the results of the hand counts (or at least a statement that they matched) along with the official election results. What will you do if there’s a discrepancy? Will you just note it and move on, and let a candidate ask for a recount if they want one, or is there some defined process that you will follow if you find a problem?

]]>