Need help analyzing a report on DREs by CA SOS Shelley. What do you see?

[rumpel]

CA State "November Parallel Monitoring Program"

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/touchscreen.htm

It is 203 pages, takes some patience to get (I first thought my computer froze)

It seems they had prearranged testing of DRE's throughout the day on Nov 2 with the counties requesting electronic voting systems.

"Program Purpose
Current federal, state, and county accuracy testing of Direct Recording Electronic
(DRE) voting systems occurs prior to elections and does not mirror actual voting
conditions. The March Parallel Monitoring Program was developed as a
supplement to the current logic and accuracy testing processes. The goal was to
determine the presence of malicious code by testing the accuracy of the
machines to record, tabulate, and report votes using a sample of DRE equipment
in selected counties under simulated voting conditions on Election Day.
Notwithstanding this additional level of testing, there are forms of malicious code
that could affect the accuracy of a voting system that would not be detected by
federal, state, local or parallel testing. Other detection methods, such as the
Accessible Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (AVVPAT), are necessary to expose
these types of election tampering.
The Program results provide a “snapshot” of a specific system’s behavior on
Election Day. Thus, the value of the results is limited to the November 2, 2004
Election Day."

Whatever anyone says, he has done some painstaking work to ensure accuracy.
The content of the report:

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4
A. March 2004 Parallel Monitoring Program ......................................................... 4
B. The November 2, 2004 General Election Program......................................... 5
II. Parallel Monitoring Program Overview ......................................................................... 6
A. Program Purpose ................................................................................................. 6
B. Program Scope..................................................................................................... 6
C. Program Requisites ............................................................................................. 7
D. Program Methodology ......................................................................................... 8
1. Test Equipment Selection and Security...................................................... 9
2. Test Methodology.........................................................................................12
3. Database Development...............................................................................12
4. Test Script Characteristics ..........................................................................13
5. Test Script Components..............................................................................16
6. Test Team Composition and Training .......................................................17
7. Team Member Roles and Responsibilities...............................................18
E. Schedule of Activity for November 2, 2004 ....................................................21
1. Pre-Test Set Up ............................................................................................21
2. Executing the Test Scripts ..........................................................................21
3. Documenting Discrepancies.......................................................................23
4. Post Test Activities.......................................................................................23
III. Reconciling the Test Results ......................................................................................23
IV. Parallel Monitoring Program Findings ........................................................................25
A. Analysis and Results by County ......................................................................25
1. Alameda County...........................................................................................25
2. Merced County .............................................................................................26
3. Napa County.................................................................................................27
4. Orange County .............................................................................................28
5. Plumas County .............................................................................................29
6. Riverside County..........................................................................................31
7. San Bernardino .............................................................................................31
8. Santa Clara County......................................................................................31
9. Shasta County ..............................................................................................33
10. Tehama County............................................................................................34

plus Appendix A-Z

[satya]

1. So they're going after him for doing his job? What are they hiding? n/t

[rumpel]

2. I am not sure. The thing is his findings say that the DRE's performed with

100% accuracy

IV. Parallel Monitoring Program Findings
Results of the reconciliation analysis indicate that the DRE equipment tested
on November 2, 2004 recorded the votes as cast with 100% accuracy.
In six counties—Alameda, Napa, San Bernardino, Shasta, Tehama, and
Riverside—the results matched exactly for all contests and no further analysis
was required to reconcile the results.
For the remaining four counties—Merced, Orange, Plumas and Santa Clara—
variations remained which could not be explained by the discrepancy reports
completed during the testing. In these cases, the video recordings were
analyzed. In all cases the analysis revealed the source of the discrepancies
to be tester error.

maybe they want to avoid such monitoring accross the country?

[satya]

3. Yeah, we can't have that now, can we? That would be like a journalist

who dared to ask tough questions...:eyes:

[alexisfree]

4. god forgive ..having smart ass ..arround

[rumpel]

5. what do you mean?