Jonathan, Burlington uses open-source free tallying software (Choice Plus Pro), not SF.
The Burlington ballot records and software are here http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/20060307/ As for San Francisco ballots and other election data for one of their ranked choice voting (RCV) elections... 1. Raw first choice totals reported in all the election reports ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=68841 ) 2. The complete set of RCV rankings, sortable by precinct ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2007/november/BallotImage.txt ) 3. The round-by-round RCV tally (in the years, unlike 2007, when an RCV tally actually occurs) (for example, http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp?id=61583 ), and 4. Statement of vote showing precinct and absentee totals for all candidates in all precincts ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/ElectionsArchives/2007/november/SOV071106.txt ) All of this data is released starting on election night and updated through the counting of absentee and provisional ballots. [Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/elections_index.asp ] -Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Lundell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Terry Bouricius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dave Ketchum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote: > Jonathan Lundell wrote: > > "BTW, it seems to me that there's a relatively straightforward > solution > in principle to the problem of computerized vote counting, based on > the use of separate data-entry and counting processes. Let voters vote > on paper, either by hand or with an electronic marking machine, enter > the ballot data, perhaps by scanning, in such a way that the resulting > ballot data can be verified by hand against the paper ballots, and > permit counting by multiple independent counting programs." > > That is exactly what Burlington (VT) and San Francisco (CA) do. > Optical > scan ballots are used, and the voter rankings are tallied by an > official > open-source program, but can also be tallied (and has been tallied) by > other programs, because all of the ballot images are posted on the > Internet. A key element, however is a hand-audit of a random sample > of > machines to assure (to a reasonable degree of confidence) that the > computer record for the ballots matches the paper record. This > redundant > record is what makes these ranked-ballot elections significantly MORE > secure than traditional hand-count elections (were some ballots > stolen, > added, re-marked to spoil, etc.?) and more secure than all electronic > elections (was there a bribed programmer who inserted a virus?) California has a pretty good statewide requirement for a random (by precinct IIRC) recount. However, I'm mildly skeptical on the above, both that SF uses open- source counting software and that the ballots are available online. Can you provide URLs for both? I'd love to do some counting myself. Putting hand-marked ballot images online raises vote-buying issues. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
