[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [election-services] Twitter and Elections / Action Groups / Party apparatus and Open Sourced Democracy
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:42 PM, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote: > Joe, > > Actually the reverse is true! The EML 530 is something the States > themselves can do independently of the vendors! > > California actually build theirs out of the database they maintain of all > the precinct level votes cast and reported to them by the various vendors > kit. This is the hard part... I suspect they have a number of data entry people doing some or a lot of this. I'd love to know more and if they just transform vendor reports (I'd like to know which ones) into EML. > While not ideal for strict auditing purposes - it does provide for > statistical and trend analysis at a minimum - and may have other > applicabilities - subject to States supporting requests for additional > gradularity in what is reported statistically. Yeah, I don't think we've done a good job in the academic community specifying what data elements we need for audit purposes. Essentially, we need results at the level of granularity at which audits are performed for a given system. Anyway, I can talk more about this if people are interested. best, Joe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]