**[COMMENT #2 ON FEC 2002 VSS ON ACCURACY OF VOTING
SYSTEMS:]{.underline}**

Under "TITLE III" OF "UNIFORM AND NONDISCRIMINATORY ELECTION TECHNOLOGY
AND ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS", "Subtitle A, Section, 301, (a)
Requirements, (5):

"Error rates.---The error rate of the voting system in counting ballots
(determined by taking into account only those errors which are
attributable to the voting system and not attributable to an act of the
voter) shall comply with the error rate standards established under
section 3.2.1 of the voting systems standards issued by the Federal
Election Commission which are in effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act."

Under the standards of 3.2.1:

"For testing purposes, the acceptable error rate is defined using two
parameters: the desired error rate to be achieved, and the maximum error
rate that should be accepted by the test process.

For each processing function indicated above, the system shall achieve a
target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions,
with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in
500,000 ballot positions."

Under the rules on paper ballot:

"a. For all paper-based systems:

1)  Scanning ballot positions on paper ballots to detect selections for
    individual candidates and contests;

2)  Conversion of selections detected on paper ballots into digital
    data;"

The "real" specification on paper based system is found on section 3.2.5
"Paper-based Conversion Requirements" (page 3-17):

"To ensure accuracy, paper-based system shall:

a.  Detect punches or marks that conform to vendor specifications with
    an error rate not exceeding the requirement indicated in Section
    3.2.1;

b.  Ignore, and not record, extraneous perforations, smudges, and folds;
    and

c.  Reject ballots that meet all vendors specifications at a rate not to
    exceed 2 percent."

The specification is simply not adequate in details for any meaningful
testing to be done!

The call for "ignoring and not recording extraneous perforations,
smudges, and folds" will requires some specific definition on vendor
specifications.

If vendor specify for the mark-sense voting system, all paper ballots
must be:

-   100% full filled-in and marked with #2 pencil.

-   No marking or smudges or folds that appears to be intentional
    markings of more than 30% are allowed.

-   Markings should not exceed beyond the authorized marking targets.

There is no way that majority of voters will be able to follow that kind
of requirements! Yet, the system is considered accurate!

The specifications should not be left to vendor to specify. Instead the
system should specify certain measurable parameters that the testing
agency can perform. For example, may the specification should read:

-   Between 30-100% of fully marked ballots with vendor specified
    commercial marking devices.

-   Smudges due to markings and folding less than 20+/-10% of the target
    marking area or having pixel measurement exceeding 20+/-10%.

Some specifications similar to those outlined above that can be
"reasonably measured" and that can be expected from most voters
reasonably will be appropriate.

I hope the above "oversight" in the FEC 2002 VSS can be corrected in the
new EAC VSS.

I also hope that EAC will provide guidelines as to how to provide the
accessibility as intended in HAVA under the current FEC 2002 VSS.

Sincerely yours,

Kevin Chung, Ph.D., CEO

AVANTE International Technology, Inc.