[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# Re: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)

- To: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>, <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: Re: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- From: "Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:45:54 -0800
- References: <NCBBIGGNCKBDKCCGPEOAEEPLDAAA.ken@dieboldes.com>

    Sometimes they actually call the inspector and pollworkers to ask what
    happened.  The more information they have the better they can discuss with
    the pollworkers.  As I said, the statistical approach would help them
    explain to others, the log approach would help them reconstruct the
    explanation.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Ken Clark <ken@dieboldes.com>
    To: <rcr@dieboldes.com>
    Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 7:21 AM
    Subject: RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)

    > > I think the statistical approach would be adequate, although the
    > > log with a
    > > date and time stamp would be the preference.
    >
    >
    > Why?  What exactly are you going to do with the log:
    >
    > 1-23-00 8:15:03AM ballot jam
    > 1-23-00 1:13:24PM ballot jam
    > 1-23-00 4:54:07PM ballot jam
    >
    > If the ballot jam had happened at 2:23:52PM instead of 1:13:24PM, what are
    > you going to conclude as the election administrator?
    >
    > Ken
    >
    >

- Follow-Ups:
  - RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>

- References:
  - RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>

- Prev by Date: RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- Next by Date: RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread