Paper Records and electronic Audits
•
0 j'aime•324 vues
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
En vedette
En vedette (8)
Similaire à Paper Records and electronic Audits
Similaire à Paper Records and electronic Audits (20)
Plus de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance
Plus de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Paper Records and electronic Audits
- 1. EDEM 2009 Paper Records and Electronic Audits: A Step Towards Regaining Voter Trust Mohammed Awad Ernst L. Leiss University of Houston
- 7. Actual Challenged Ballots III
- 13. Our System II A Spool for Candidate X
- 14. Our System III The Back of Candidate X Spool
- 15. Our System IV Illustrative View
- 16. Our System V The Voter Actual View
- 17. Our System VI Candidate X Spool with 6 Votes on it
- 20. Questions ?
Notes de l'éditeur
- MN election law < 0.05% recount = 14,600 vote
- Both campaigns challenged this Hennepin County ballot with the Coleman camp saying the voter's intent is clear and the Franken camp saying what appear to be initials constitute an identifying mark on the ballot
- This ballot was challenged in Dakota County because two ovals were filled in. Minnesota law says a ballot is valid if election officials can determine the voter's intent
- voter cast their ballot for Al Franken, but also put &quot;Lizard People&quot; as a write-in candidate, not only in the U.S. Senate race, but for several others. The county auditor/treasurer ruled that the vote should not be counted because it's considered an overvote
- The Coleman campaign challenged this ballot from Hennepin County, saying the voter's editorial comments constitute a distinguishing mark on the ballot
- The ballot was challenged and considered overvote
- Franken ahead