That's the question.

But when machines that appear to be more error prone are concentrated in high-percentage minority areas, as seems to be the case here, you have to admit that some anger and resentment could be justified, and that it would seem to be unfair and not equal treatment. There will always be some error, to be sure. But the distribution of error counts (no pun intended).

I would like to see the actual numbers.

At any rate, Brett, the unfortunate truth is that regardless of the tech employed, the poor minority precincts will have higher error rates.

And the irony is that in the Caltech-MIT study, electronic machines had similar error rates to punch-cards, athough, granted, they weren't all touch-screens in the study.

Optical scan ballots were the best, but they are considered less accessible by disabled voters...

And, I do agree that the effort should be made to improve the tech--just not in the middle of an ongoing process.

And John, I really would like the answer to that question. Ultimately my guess is that we are talking about only a marginal increase in "fairness".

That's what the courts are for. This isn't something decided by popularity...

Steven:

The numbers problem is an important one, to be sure. Still, how "marginal" does an improvement need to be in order to be justified? One that makes sure that 10,000 more votes are counted accurately? 5,000? 2,000? And what is the relationship between this number and the margin of victory?

It's a really hard question and one that does not admit of a fully "accurate" answer. One of the things that makes me angry about this debate, however, is that it too easy for folks to say that marginal improvements in fairness for other people are not worth the burden on them.

Brett,

The exact number, and its relative nature to the overall pool, is key. And I am for fairness, but I question the degree to which this is even the real goal here.

What frustrates me about these kinds of situations is that perceived injustice only becomes a point of contention as a means of thrawting an already ongoing process--this was the last of I think about a dozen attempts by various anti-recall groups to stop the process via the courts. It isn't as if the injustice was so gross that felt the need, for example, to stop the usage of these machines in 2024.

Steven:

I just reread your last comment, substituting "Bush's attacks on the 2024 presidential election recounts" as the topic. ;-)

More seriously, why should the number "relative to the overall pool" be the important one? Why not relative to the predicted margin of victory? And in general I still think that you haven't answered the question: what number do you think would be fair? My impression is that it is an unanswerable question because the fairness here depends on the margin of victory, so in any close elections things are going to be contentious. That's why at the very least it's worthwhile to have at least an appearance of attempting to count as many votes as accurately as possible. And, again, if it's your votes that have the possibility of being counted less rigorously, you're going to be a lot more upset than if it's the votes of your rivals. An unpleasant fact, but part and parcel of the whole uproar here.

Of course, you did raise that question below! I guess you think it's unanswerable, too. What consequences should one draw from the unanswerability of the question? That's the interesting problem. . .