|
This is really boring, but, please stay with me! :-)
We utilize this machine to verify "bulk mailings" where I am employed. For each 24 hour cycle, we MUST run a "test deck" comprised of a total of 11 cards. The first five are a rubber/plastic composite with various sizes and thicknesses; the second group of three, are paper replicates (different dimensioned rectangular pieces) of what would be typical larger pieces of mail; which we call "flats". The third group would, also be paper replicates of "letter" size mail (all equal in height and length).
Before we are allowed to perform a "verification" on the sample of mail which is presented, a "GO/NO GO" test must be performed to insure that the MERLIN is accurately reading, and weighing the 11 cards of the test deck. The software will analyze these 11 pieces to insure that the scales, camera, etc. are within a certain tolerance of error.
In the scenario of "TESTING" the MERLIN, the parameters of "tolerance" are predetermined by the software; which compares the results of the test (the scales, the camera, etc) in relation to the standard that these "physical" devices are measuring the attributes of the "TEST DECK". There is a somewhat constant variable which the software analyzes. If any of the four physical attributes of the MERLIN fail in verifying that constant, then we must have our maintenance staff make the proper adjustment to correct the physical aspects of the MERLIN which are necessary for a proper reading of our customer's mail. IT WILL NOT ALLOW US TO perform a verification until it PASSES a "GO/NO GO" TEST.
When running an "actual" verification, there are still problems which we encounter. Some due to the "software", and some due to several elements of the operation of the MERLIN itself.
For example, if we are verifying a sample of letters, sometimes the MERLIN erroneously flags an error in the "mail characteristics" of the "aspect ratio" of the mail. A letter must have an "aspect ratio" between 1.3 and 2.5. That means that length of the letter in relation to the height of the letter must fall within the "ratio". Example: A letter is 6 inches long, and 4 inches high; the "aspect ratio" is 1.5 Certainly falling between the requirement of 1.3 to 2.5.
Sometimes, the "belt" which feeds this mail into the MERLIN does run evenly. We then have to manually measure the mail to insure that it is being "INCORRECTLY" read by the MERLIN.
NOW! First of all, if the "physical feed" mechanism of the voting device is not properly calibrated, the ballot may not be being read accurately. This may or may not be a bias toward the selection of any candidate over another. It could also record A "NO VOTE"! Secondly, there may be times when another testing of the voting device would be in order, to insure that the "feeding" of the ballots was being properly synchronized with the optical scanning of the ballot. This could certainly be a more possible "reading" error of the ballot, dependent upon the voting traffic on any particular machine.
I wholeheartedly agree with you "dewaldd", that the "test deck" should definitely be, totally "replicated", in every way the "actual ballot". There are too many possibilities for error, intentional, or not.
Thanx for allowing me to relate my experience with this sort of physical "recording" as I know it to be. I hope that some of the more diligent members may be able to help connect the dots better than I!
:-)
|