Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options

S. Candice Hoke; Matt Bishop; Mark Graff; David Jefferson; Sean Peisert; Candice Hoke

Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options

S. Candice Hoke
, Matt Bishop
, Mark Graff
, David Jefferson
, Sean Peisert
, Candice Hoke

Cleveland State University

Cleveland State University
University of California - Davis
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
University of California, Davis and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This paper seeks to assist election officials and their lawyers in effectively handling the technical issues that can be difficult to understand and analyze, allowing them to protect themselves and the public interest from unfair accusations, inaccuracies in results, and conspiracy theories. The paper helps to empower officials to recognize which types of voting system events and indicators need a more structured analysis and what steps to take to set up the evaluations (or forensic assessments) using computer experts.

Original language	American English
Journal	Default journal
State	Published - Oct 9 2008

Keywords

election administration
voting technology
election forensics

Disciplines

Election Law
Law and Politics

Access to Document

Resolving the Unexpected in Elections Election Officials OptionFinal published version, 408 KBLicense: CC BY

Cite this

@article{1c096017b4304a5388c18d00f30cdd56,

title = "Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options",

abstract = " This paper seeks to assist election officials and their lawyers in effectively handling the technical issues that can be difficult to understand and analyze, allowing them to protect themselves and the public interest from unfair accusations, inaccuracies in results, and conspiracy theories. The paper helps to empower officials to recognize which types of voting system events and indicators need a more structured analysis and what steps to take to set up the evaluations (or forensic assessments) using computer experts.",

keywords = "election administration, voting technology, election forensics",

author = "Hoke, \{S. Candice\} and Matt Bishop and Mark Graff and David Jefferson and Sean Peisert and Candice Hoke",

year = "2008",

month = oct,

day = "9",

language = "American English",

journal = "Default journal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options

AU - Hoke, S. Candice

AU - Bishop, Matt

AU - Graff, Mark

AU - Jefferson, David

AU - Peisert, Sean

AU - Hoke, Candice

PY - 2008/10/9

Y1 - 2008/10/9

N2 - This paper seeks to assist election officials and their lawyers in effectively handling the technical issues that can be difficult to understand and analyze, allowing them to protect themselves and the public interest from unfair accusations, inaccuracies in results, and conspiracy theories. The paper helps to empower officials to recognize which types of voting system events and indicators need a more structured analysis and what steps to take to set up the evaluations (or forensic assessments) using computer experts.

AB - This paper seeks to assist election officials and their lawyers in effectively handling the technical issues that can be difficult to understand and analyze, allowing them to protect themselves and the public interest from unfair accusations, inaccuracies in results, and conspiracy theories. The paper helps to empower officials to recognize which types of voting system events and indicators need a more structured analysis and what steps to take to set up the evaluations (or forensic assessments) using computer experts.

KW - election administration

KW - voting technology

KW - election forensics

UR - https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/lawfac_reports/3

M3 - Article

JO - Default journal

JF - Default journal

ER -

Resolving the Unexpected in Elections: Election Officials' Options

Abstract

Keywords

Disciplines

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this