Re: [election-services] Twitter and Elections / Action Groups / Party apparatus and Open Sourced Democracy

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>]

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