1 / 12

IEEE Working Group P1622 Meeting

IEEE Working Group P1622 Meeting. February 24-25, 2013 National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD. Election results reporting standard. Overview: John Wack Districting and its complications: Kim Brace EML 520 schema discussion: David Webber

eris
Download Presentation

IEEE Working Group P1622 Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IEEE Working GroupP1622 Meeting February 24-25, 2013 National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD

  2. Election results reporting standard • Overview: John Wack • Districting and its complications: Kim Brace • EML 520 schema discussion: David Webber • Next steps discussion: John Wack

  3. Task force members Kim Brace – EDS Joseph Hagerty – SOS, CA Justin Hankins – ESS Matt Masterson – SOS, OH Neal McBurnett – Election Audits, CO John McCarthy – Verified Voting Jan van Oort Ian Piper – Dominion Paul Stenbjorn– ESS Beth Ann Surber – SOS, WV John P Wack – NIST Webber, David RR - Oracle Sarah Whitt – SOS, WI Additional: Don Rehill, David Stonehill – AP

  4. 1622-2 PAR - Scope This standard defines common data interchange formats for information reported about election results. Electionresults information is based on data from vote capture devices and resultant tabulation data or other information about theelection from election management systems. This standard focuses on the OASIS EML version 7 schemas 510, 520, and 530,which contain data elements and structures for contest totals and associated counts used for reconciliations and audits.

  5. 1622-2 PAR - Purpose This standard facilitates the import and export, in a common format, of election results data that is typically reported from distributed voting places to central offices of local jurisdictions, from local jurisdictions to state election systems, and from local and state election offices to news media and the general public. It can also facilitate post-election auditing ofelection results.

  6. Use cases supported • A state/county reporting outward to the public/media on election day using an EML 520 file – very simple aggregated counts, possibly broken down by reporting unit • A county or similar reporting unit reporting upward to a central elections office on election day using an EML 520 file –simple aggregated counts or more detailed counts as available • Post-election reporting in more detail or certified results or election archive using an EML 520 file - more detailed counts, broken down by reporting unit • Note: Use case 3 is almost identical to use case 2 in that reporting election results in detail on election day ends up being mostly the same as a post-election election archive.

  7. Optional counts and tags • Counts include • ballots cast, • ballots read, • ballots counted, • contest vote totals, and • overvotes/undervotes. • Capability to "tag" counts with the manner of voting, e.g., absentee, in person, etc. • Capability to tag counts with voting technology, e.g., op scan, DRE, manual count paper, etc. This includes tagging overvotes/undervoteswith voting technology if possible. • Note: most counts and tags are the result of requirements analysis of EAC’s VVSG

  8. Additional capabilities added • Reduce file sizes by associating contest and candidate and reporting unit names with IDs • First send of the file contains the mapping • Subsequent files use only IDs • Be able to report on virtually any level of district breakdown • First send of file identifies district breakdowns and their associated IDs

  9. Districting is complicated…

  10. Current status • Several revisions of schema, current version implements most but not all optional counts • Starting to examine and compare with other schemas and formats to ensure completeness • Discussions with AP have been fruitful • AP focused more on election night reporting • Would opt for as much standardization as possible, include IDs for contest/candidates/districts

  11. Open questions • Has schema gotten too complicated for use in all three use cases • Should a simplified schema be used for election night (does it matter if multiple schemas)? • Should the standard be divided into two standards so as to make faster progress? • Should this be a brand-new schema?

  12. Next steps • Complete a simple data model and ensure that schema implements the model • The model should respond to requirements, thus requirements above/beyond VVSG must be documented • A need to study other reporting formats being used (AP, other states, etc) to ensure completeness

More Related