After I manually scanned through all ballot images to search for and make any corrections to the TEVS results, I located 35 vote targets whose software interpretations needed correction. Mostly, these were due to extremely light check marks. The scan of the 12,000 images, with votes overlaid on them by the software, went at about 90 to 100 images per minute, or 90 to 100 ballots per minute, since these were single sided ballots.
Having made those corrections, my independent results off of the Transparency Project's images match the county's Final Unofficial Results exactly except for the following:
Dave Saunderson 1559 versus county report of 1557
Emil Fierabend 441 versus county report of 442
John W Corbett 1377 versus county report of 1376
Joe O'Hara 104 versus county report of 102
Judy Gower 162 versus county report of 164
Mike Seeber 55 versus county report of 54
Susan Johnson 3104 versus county report of 3103
Zachary Thoma 16 versus county report of 17
As my interpretation of votes may not have followed the official rules, it is very reasonable to assume that the errors are in the independent count. None of the discrepancies would change any results.
The only reason I am not calling this "entry" final is that we may have an opportunity to do multiple-person recounting of the races with discrepancies.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Preliminary Results, Nov 2011 Elections
Given the dismal 22% turnout, there were only 12,269 ballots for the Transparency Project to scan. We began with 3.5 hours of scanning on Veteran's Day, and then 3 shifts this week totaling 11 more hours.
I ran the scans through TEVS yesterday and have manually counted the (fewer than 10) ballot scans it rejected. I also checked for votes on about 40 ballot images when a vote region was indicated as just a smidgen above the darkness cutoff. The results are still missing for one ballot, where we mistakenly scanned the blank reverse. That ballot will have to be retrieved from the County's ballot storage.
The results compare well with the Final Unofficial Results posted at the County web site.
I'll point to a spreadsheet once I've been able to check the results more thoroughly, but here
are screen shots of the spreadsheet in its current form. The write-in results are incomplete, due to my mistake, but the other results are mostly within 1 of the Final Unofficial Results, with a couple off by 2.
Note that some candidates have more than one line, where optical character recognition generated multiple versions of their name and I did not merge them (many such variants have already been merged in software -- the ones that show are the ones I missed).
I ran the scans through TEVS yesterday and have manually counted the (fewer than 10) ballot scans it rejected. I also checked for votes on about 40 ballot images when a vote region was indicated as just a smidgen above the darkness cutoff. The results are still missing for one ballot, where we mistakenly scanned the blank reverse. That ballot will have to be retrieved from the County's ballot storage.
The results compare well with the Final Unofficial Results posted at the County web site.
I'll point to a spreadsheet once I've been able to check the results more thoroughly, but here
are screen shots of the spreadsheet in its current form. The write-in results are incomplete, due to my mistake, but the other results are mostly within 1 of the Final Unofficial Results, with a couple off by 2.
Note that some candidates have more than one line, where optical character recognition generated multiple versions of their name and I did not merge them (many such variants have already been merged in software -- the ones that show are the ones I missed).
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
If I can shop online, why can't I vote online?
An important explanation of a common question, by David Jefferson, at the Election Law Blog.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24849
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=24849
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)