[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)

- To: <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:22:07 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <00c201bf4336$e1d9b720$35d0fc9e@default>

> Count is off by 4 votes.
> Administrator calls Inspector and asks:
> What happened yesterday? How many Jams did you have?
> Inspector says I remember 1 jam around 10:00am but I went to lunch between 2-and 3 in the afternoon.
> Admin checks log and notes that there were 3 jams between 2 and 3 while inspector was gone.
> Now calls other judges and asks them about jams, and who handled, it.
> Finds person who handled jams and asks them what procedure was. Determines they just refed them when they were already counted (or vice versa).

Nice scenario, but wouldn't it have been easier just to ask each poll worker what the jam procedure was, and slap the one that did it wrong?
Anyway, I am trying to illustrate a point more than anything else here. If people want to log this, I have no great opposition to it (just like any other log option). I just never find a compelling explanation for why is all.
Ken

- References:
  - Fw: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
    - From: "Steve Knecht" <skglobal@earthlink.net>

- Prev by Date: Fw: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- Next by Date: Re: Logging Scanner Jams (was: Audit trail improvement suggestions)
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread