Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (NY) 11/09 - IMPOSSIBLE NUMBERS CERTI... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10888
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 5:30 pm: | 
|
For several days now, I have been in close communication with Richard Hayes Phillips, author of WITNESS TO A CRIME, a book detailing his findings when conducting a ballot examination after the 2004 Ohio election. Phillips lives in NY-23, the site of one of the nation's most controversial political races in 2009.
Today, he wrote a disturbing article about the impossible numbers certified by election officials in the NY-23 race. I'll reprint portions of that article below; first, let me share the comments of V. Kurt Bellman, former elections director for Berks County, Pennsylvania, concerning what an election official should do when asked to sign off on mathematically impossible numbers:
quote:"Not even ONE mathematically impossible number gets even one 'cell' on any document I would need to sign," writes Bellman, "and anyone who might try to get me to sign it needs to be prepared to see the inside of another kind of 'cell."
There is no doubt that New York election officials are under the gun, and NY-23 districts are no exception. New York locations are being pushed into abandoning their cost-effective and trusty old mechanical lever machines to implement new Sequoia/Dominion ImageCast optical scanners. This change was not embraced by many of the New York elections officials, who are now struggling to explain machine failures in many different counties, and in NY-23, officials were certainly under massive pressure to sign off on the numbers, and they probably never had never dealt with NEGATIVE numbers before.
That said, the traditional method of tampering with a lever machine, is to "roll back the odometer" so that before the day starts, you have your guy at +25 and the other guy at -25, and at the end of the day after the votes all roll in, all the numbers match the number of votes cast. Unless, of course, the other guy only got 24 votes, in which case it all comes unraveled.
It is exactly this "roll back the odometer" tactic that WE used when hacking the optical scan memory card, as seen in the film Hacking Democracy and in this short video (which also shows that -- unlike the lever machines -- the counter can read "zero" at the beginning of the day with software-driven systems, even when votes have been preloaded):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Whew. Ready to read the whole article by Richard Hayes Phillips, detailing the anomalies in NY-23?
YOU CAN READ THE WHOLE THING HERE:
http://tinyurl.com/impossiblenumbers
Excerpts from the article, which appears in the Gouverneur Times:
quote:"The election results certified by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional District contain some numbers that are mathematically impossible. These numbers were requested in person and transmitted by e-mail just hours before certification on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009.
For six election districts in St. Lawrence County (the 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 7th districts in Canton, the 14th district in Massena, and the 2nd district in Oswegatchie) negative numbers appear in the column for 'blank' ballots, known in other states as 'undervotes.'
"Blank vote counts are ballots in which the voter did not choose any candidate in a given election and are determined by subtracting the total number of votes cast for the candidates from the number of voters who completed ballots. The remaining number would be those voters who didn't cast a vote for that election.
"In Canton's 7th district, the certified results show a total of 148 ballots cast. The results of those votes were counted as 88 votes for Owens, 11 votes for Scozzafava, and 80 votes for Hoffman. The problem is that these numbers add up to 179 votes counted for the candidates, and there were only 148 ballots cast; St. Lawrence County certified these numbers to the state as accurate with the number of 'blank' ballots reported as minus 31.
"The Board of Elections stated repeatedly that their numbers add up, and strictly speaking, they do. But negative numbers should not be required to make this happen."
You heard him. "The Board of Elections stated repeatedly that their numbers add up. BUT NEGATIVE NUMBERS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN."
Phillips goes on to write:
quote:"Election analysts refer to this phenomenon as 'phantom voters,' because they are apparitions. They do not actually exist. There can never be more votes counted for any office than the number of actual voters who cast ballots. There could be one or two, if on occasion an actual voter forgot to sign the poll book, but never 31.
"In addition to the 31 'phantom votes' certified in Canton's 7th district, there are 16 more in Canton's 2nd district, two in Canton's 4th district, 20 in the 7th, 22 in Massena 14th district, and 2 in Oswegatchie 2nd district.
Unless we know for certain (and this doesn't mean just hypothesizing) what caused the minus numbers, an error of, say, 31 doesn't at all mean that the real error is 31. It might be 3100, or 8,573.
Some election officials, followed dutifully by the media, may shrug off anomalies like minus 31 votes, saying "but it didn't affect the result."
Now, if I get a bank statement and somehow the transaction total is $5.40 less than the transactions, I don't shrug that off saying "but it didn't bounce a check!" I have questions. What caused this? Aren't computers supposed to be able to add and subtract? How many other customers have a total that is not correct? Who got the missing $5.40?
Any accountant will tell you that one small anomaly can add up to a substantial embezzlement once you unravel the whole thing. In elections, when the books don't balance it can be a Very Bad Thing.
COULD SOMEONE HAVE EMBEZZLED AN ELECTION?
In a way, it doesn't matter -- the new software driven systems conceal the counting of the vote from the public, transforming public elections into something that is no longer actually public. This is a violation of our inalienable, fundamental rights -- public elections are what enable us to control the instruments of government that we have created; if we do not have truly public elections, in truth, we are not really a free people. With or without fraud, these software-driven voting machines have removed an essential component of liberty from the people of New York.
In March 2009, the German high court ruled that election processes which conceal the counting process from the public are unconstitutional. Germany banned its software-driven system, because it violated the rights of the public by concealing an essential process in the election.
The issues in New York go deeper than whether negative numbers mean fraud -- they go to the heart of voting rights, and liberty itself. But could the mechanics of fraud have produced negative numbers for some voting machine results?
Logic tells us that election tampering, if it occurs, is most likely to use tactics that have been local specialties for years. In Appalachia, you see vote-buying and absentee fraud. In lever locations like New York, if there was fraud, the old standby was the "roll back the odometer" trick. So one would expect that IF there was fraud in a New York election that had just converted to software-driven systems, the same tactic might be used with the software.
That doesn't mean there was fraud. But negative numbers do appear in the voting machine results in some locations. IF there was a rollback of the odometer method employed, the negative numbers would only appear if an insufficient number of voting transactions take place to roll it up into the positive. And that would mean that the negative number locations would only be the tip of the iceberg, in terms of the scale of the problem. Most locations would roll up into positive numbers, erasing the telltale signs.
We will certainly be told that there was no tampering. We'll be given a reason for the anomaly, and told to trust whoever it is that told us that, who in turn must trust whoever it is that inserted whatever-it-is code into the machines to "fix" them before the election.
But public elections cannot be based on "trust."
And with impossible numbers, NEGATIVE numbers appearing in some NY-23 locations, it raises questions about what precise code was on the machines and memory cards in all New York locations. Technicians were visiting some -- but not all -- machines to put in a fix, shortly before the election. They fixed something. But not always.
We just don't know what they fixed. And probably, we never will know. And this is precisely the problem with concealed counting: We just handed ultimate control of our elections to some technician whose name we do not even know. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 248
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 28, 2009 - 10:39 am: |
|
COULD SOMEONE HAVE EMBEZZLED AN ELECTION?
In a way, it doesn't matter -- the new software driven systems conceal the counting of the vote from the public, transforming public elections into something that is no longer actually public. This is a violation of our inalienable, fundamental rights -- public elections are what enable us to control the instruments of government that we have created; if we do not have truly public elections, in truth, we are not really a free people. With or without fraud, these software-driven voting machines have removed an essential component of liberty from the people of New York.
bev and phillip sum this up very well but i would add,
with or without fraud these results can not physically be accurate,isn't that enough reason to scrap the system? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3313
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 5:48 am: |
|
"transforming public elections into something that is no longer actually public"
THIS is the essential argument to which NO ONE has ever come within a mile of poking a hole in it. Even a guy like me, who likes one particular option that's out there today, has NOTHING to counter this argument, because it doesn't even require an allegation of fraud for the argument to be valid. Either a thing is public or it is not. And if it's supposed to be public, I maintain there are PLACES that computer use is okay ( e.g. aggregation of individual publicly available precinct counts), the public observability with ANY electronic system in the first instance is a BIG problem.
I can have my own personal trust in the system my county uses because I've had fairly unique insider access and I know how robust it is when used with all its security features, but I fully understand that the population of "once, but not now" insiders is maybe a few dozen folks at most. I get the issue. People need to be treated as more than just the "button pushers", they need to be seen as the "owners" of elections.
It'll be a tough fight, I'm afraid.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 8:43 am: |
|
as ussual we are back to yaking about kurt's friends in the industry instead of discussing what any 4th grader could tell you are impossible results.....i will agree that the first problem is our elections are not transparent but transparent or not the results sighted in the article CAN NOT BE ACCURATE,wether it was from fraud or a system the simply does NOT WORK we have "extraordinary evidence"
from the article,
"In Canton's 7th district, the certified results show a total of 148 ballots cast. The results of those votes were counted as 88 votes for Owens, 11 votes for Scozzafava, and 80 votes for Hoffman. The problem is that these numbers add up to 179 votes counted for the candidates, and there were only 148 ballots cast; St. Lawrence County certified these numbers to the state as accurate with the number of 'blank' ballots reported as minus 31.
Personalization edited out by admin; the discussion diverged (with help from other members) into pros and cons of a particular voting machine model not used in New York. I moved those posts to the vendor discussion section. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3318
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 8:55 am: |
|
I want to know WHO had people certify impossible numbers. I want to see indictments of such people. I can't see a reason NOT TO.
If you signed an impossible certification, you're indicted, period. If someone directed you to sign, start naming names, and we'll give you immunity.
There is no way to maintain any kind of reputation you'd want by not cooperating, UNLESS you are so corrupt that you need to engage in "omerta".
I know Pennsylvania's DOS examines EVERY LINE of every report submitted for numbers that make sense. What's up with New York State?
I'm trying to IMAGINE a justification for this, and getting none.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10891
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 10:00 am: |
|
Thank you, Karen, for bringing this back on point, though the discussions - pro and con - on the Shoup are always of interest to me as well.
I have been in close communication with Phillips all weekend, and there are more impossible numbers in NY-23.
But yes, Kurt, you and I have had the same question: WHO signed them?
In at least one case now, in Oswego County, I can tell you who signed off on some impossible numbers: William Scriber, who it just happens is also the head of the New York Election Commissioners Association. He signed off on an impossible number in NY-23, the number of votes cast. If he is to be believed, AFTER accounting for blank votes, the ballots in Oswego County, which had multiple countywide races on them, had a different number of "ballots cast" (ie, ballots given to voters) for NY-23 than for other county-wide races. Now, this could happen because there are special federal race ballots, and indeed there were 30 special federal votes for NY-23 with, of course, zero in each of the other county-wide races.
But that would make the NY-23 race have MORE ballots case, not fewer.
Visualize it like this: You have this ballot
Supreme court race
John Jones
Sam Smith
Countywide Amendement
Yes
No
County prosecutor
Bill Bones
Tom Toth
NY-23
Bill Owens
Didi Scozzafava
Doug Hoffman
Now, if you distribute 1,000 of those ballots to voters, it is not possible to later say you distributed 1,000 for the Supreme Court Race, the countywide amendment, and the county prosecutor, but only 900 for the NY-23 race.
Could NY-23 have been on a different page? Well, it wasn't, but in fact the countywide amendments WERE on a different page, and their numbers match.
Here are the sigs of the two Oswego County commissioners on what sure looks like an impossible number in NY-23:
In this clip, you can see that the Totals (ballots cast) for NY-23 are LESS THAN for the others:
And here is the whole PDF file -- the very precise Richard Hayes Phillips noticed that each town in the county happened to have its own races, and he separately totalled up all the ballots cast for each town. They matched the ballots cast for the other countywide races, but not NY-23.
The number of ballots cast appears to be impossibly low for NY-23 by 98 votes: 68 fewer ballots plus 30 more special federal ballots.
More information is still coming out. I've received write-ups from Phillips about other counties; so far several of the counties have impossible or extremely implausible numbers. More soon. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3319
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 10:13 am: |
|
Question: Is ALL of Oswego Co. in NY-23? If not, that could account for a reduced number of ballots.
I just checked. Oswaego is entirely in NY-23, although the border of the district coincides with the county line for a piece.
http://www.co.oswego.ny.us/boe/2009results11-25-09.pdf
Note the use of the words (County Wide) at the NY-23 report. The Supreme Court race above it is clearly a "Vote for 2" race.
Notice how EVERY countywide race other than NY-23 has 27,462 ballots or EXACTLY twice that. (Vote for 2) (27,462 x 2 = 54,924) (See the rightmost column.) But NY-23 is "missing" 98 ballots, the 68 being the difference between 27,462 and 27,394, PLUS the 30 extra "Spec Fed" ballots it SHOULD have. Where are the other 98 ballots that are not for a candidate, not blank, not write-ins, and not void?
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3321
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 10:54 am: |
|
"since there was at least one completely surprising and unexplained election result, nothing should be ruled out."
Rhetorical question:
How many "completely surprising and unexplained election result"s in New Hampshire primaries does it take until they are no longer "completely surprising and unexplained"?
You'd kind of expect that nothing surprising would ever be that surprising any more, after a few decades of this, wouldn't you?
LBJ, Muskie, Dole, Obama, etc., etc.
When does the abnormal looking become normal? I mean, the list of "this went as predicted" in New Hampshire would SEEM to be the more concise list, wouldn't it?
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 250
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 12:03 pm: |
|
kurt asks,. Where are the other 98 ballots that are not for a candidate, not blank, not write-ins, and not void?.....i can not open either of the pdfs u or bev posted but my guess would be the negative blanks account for the missing 98....now i know that is not possible in the physical world but we are not in the physical world,we are in the blackbox world
as too mikes statement, That does not mean they were without some kind of exploit, it just would have been a lower tech exploit.,,,it could of been as simple as switching the labels,i am not saying that is what happened but if one human assigns the labels,another human could switch them |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 251
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 12:17 pm: |
|
catherine sums it up nicely with the following list.
So what would move things forward now?
* What investigations are possible?
* What would make it impossible for this to happen again? (the impossible results, and the certification of impossible results)
*What would shed light on who certified the impossible results, and why, and who/what influenced the decision?
* What would shed light on what caused the impossible results?
i would add,why are we paying good money for machines that spit out these nonsensical results? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3323
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 12:20 pm: |
|
karen,
Do we even know whether these are machine generated reports? They could just as easily be manually produced.
Actually, these look like RPG language reports from a midsized system, a la the System 34/36/38. One sign is the monospaced font, with exactly 128 columns on the page, and these are obviously scanned from printouts (a few pages are cockeyed plus the pdf's are HUGE and contain no selectable text).
Now if they came from a midsized or mainframe, what is the source of the data files that this report generator used? Was it a file directly exported by the EMS software, or manually typed in?
By contrast, below is what a pdf that came DIRECTLY from an EMS software looks like. Notice what happens when you select text. It is text, not a picture of text:
http://www.co.berks.pa.us/elections/lib/elections/results/grandtotals.pdf
It could mean nothing or everything. It's another data flow breach in the "chain of custody" of the data in Oswego County.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10896
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2009 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Kurt,
They were not using a central tabulator (but will in 2010). Therefore, the reports were manually produced. Your post about the source of the data is excellent. And now, we find out that Oswego County has not posted precinct results for years, and reportedly (according to one of my sources) has said they don't have to provide precinct level results.
Precinct results would pin down which 98 votes are missing. So Oswego better come up with them PRONTO! And by the way, even if they do, it wouldn't change the fact that Oswego certified an impossible number.
If you and I can see that NY-23 total ballots is a mismatch just by eyeballing the column, those election commissioners should have spotted this too -- they've had many days to canvass this -- and they should not have signed off on the report, at least not without a written accounting for why 98 votes are missing. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3325
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 6:24 am: |
|
"Oswego County has not posted precinct results for years, and reportedly (according to one of my sources) has said they don't have to provide precinct level results."
That is simply sick. That's inexcusable. No excuse possible. Call Albany. Get that changed.
By the way, does the New York Secretary of State (or equivalent) not require precinct level results from the counties? If not......WOW!!!! Does the state officially aggregate a multi-county race like this based SOLELY on countywide totals? No precinct level crosscheck? I'm stunned!
If New York is THAT sloppy, they've got a big hole in their system, I've got a Sherman tank, and I'm drivin' through it without scraping the sides.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3326
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 7:19 am: |
|
I've been wracking my brain to come up with a reason, ANY reason, ANY even half-baked wild-eyed reason why Congress would legitimately have fewer ballots than local countywide races.
Two possibilties come to mind which need to be checked.
1) A lower voting age for local races (e.g. 17 turning 18 before the term of office begins.)
2) Local voting rights for some non-citizens.
Both of these have been discussed IN PLACES, but I am unaware of New York being among them.
Worth a check, though.
The best first idea, that there is one border precinct not in the 23rd, fell down. That's not it.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Tom Courbat
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 110
Registered: 6-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, December 1, 2009 - 2:53 pm: |
|
I used to live in Fulton, NY (1947-1962) which is located in Oswego County, NY. I wasn't old enough to vote (left at age 15 to move to Pasadena, CA (LA County)), and knew nothing of this. But I can't begin to imagine ANY reason for how any county can claim they "don't have to report precinct results". We have been having issues with Riverside County, CA where I live now and they say they don't have to post precinct results either - amazing! That ensures no one can reconcile or determine where votes were off or missing, etc. Sounds like BBV and Richard Hayes Phillips might have a huge project awaiting their leadership expertise. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 257
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:35 am: |
|
more info from ny 23
As previously reported, the number of “blank” ballots, or “undervotes,” is calculated by subtracting the number of votes counted for a given office from the total number of ballots cast. In the Congressional race, the highest percentage of “blank” ballots anywhere in St. Lawrence County was in Russell’s 2nd district. According to the poll book there were 590 actual voters at the polls, and there were 11 absentee ballots, for a total of 601, in Russell’s 1st and 2nd districts combined. According to the certified results there were 338 ballots cast, of which 23 (6.8%) were blank, in the 1st district, and 262 ballots cast, of which 27 (10.3%) were blank, in the 2nd district. It is highly unlikely that 10.3% of the voters made no choice among three candidates in one of the most hotly contested races in the nation.
The second-highest percentage of “blank” ballots for Congress was in Hammond. According to the poll book there were 569 actual voters at the polls, and there were 67 absentee ballots plus one special federal ballot, for a total of 637. According to the certified results there were 637 ballots cast, of which 51 (8.0%) were blank – again, a highly unlikely percentage for a hotly contested race. In Hammond, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 305 votes for Owens, 206 for Hoffman, and 37 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 298 votes for Owens, 228 votes for Hoffman, and 60 votes for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent the 67 absentee ballots, is minus 7 for Owens, 22 for Hoffman, 23 for Scozzafava, and, by subtraction, 29 blanks. Whether the drop in Owens’ vote total is an error or a correction is unknown. But there is simply no way that 29 (or even 22) of 67 voters who took the time and effort to cast an absentee ballot made no choice for Congress. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 258
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:38 am: |
|
Hammond is not the only polling place where one candidate or another managed to lose votes subsequent to Election Day.
•In DeKalb’s 1st district, where there were 355 actual voters at the polls, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 201 votes for Owens, 128 for Hoffman, and 26 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 189 votes for Owens, 132 votes for Hoffman, and 34 votes for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 15 absentee ballots, is minus 12 for Owens, 4 for Hoffman, and 8 for Scozzafava – a net increase of no votes at all.
•In Lisbon’s 1st district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 146 votes for Owens, 149 for Hoffman, and 13 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 121 votes for Owens, 159 for Hoffman, and 19 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 19 absentee ballots, is minus 25 for Owens, 10 for Hoffman, and 6 for Scozzafava – a net decrease of nine votes.
•In Massena’s 9th district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 108 votes for Owens, 87 for Hoffman, and 2 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 119 votes for Owens, 69 for Hoffman, and 4 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 14 absentee ballots and one special federal ballot, is 11 for Owens, minus 18 for Hoffman, and 2 for Scozzafava – a net decrease of five votes. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 259
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:42 am: |
|
•In Ogdensburg’s 1st district, where there were 305 actual voters at the polls, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 141 votes for Owens, 103 for Hoffman, and 10 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 167 votes for Owens, 119 for Hoffman, and 16 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 9 absentee ballots, is 26 for Owens, 16 for Hoffman, and 6 for Scozzafava – a net increase of 48 votes. Even now, there are reportedly 13 blank ballots out of 315, or 4.1% of the total. But more importantly, the electronic vote count on Election Night was short by 39 votes, or 12.8% of the actual total of 305. Either these were initially counted as blanks, or not counted at all, or some combination of the two.
•In Lisbon’s 2nd district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 114 votes for Owens, 110 for Hoffman, and 9 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 116 votes for Owens, 133 for Hoffman, and 12 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 6 absentee ballots, is 2 for Owens, 23 for Hoffman, and 3 for Scozzafava – a net increase of 28 votes. Thus the electronic vote count on Election Night was short by 22 votes, or 8.3% of the actual total. (The poll books do not reveal the precise number of voters at the polls, because Lisbon was a multiple-precinct polling place, as were Massena’s 9th and 10th districts). |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 260
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:43 am: |
|
srry i am siting this material after i printed it
http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8461 :first-the-impossible-now-the-improbable-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Item id=175 |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3341
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:47 am: |
|
Merely a hypotheses, nothing more:
Imagine a strident Scozzafava supporter. Thinks BOTH Owens and Hoffman are jerks. Doesn't know (due to stupid publicity) that he can STILL vote for Scozzafava. Is it really THAT IMPOSSIBLE to imagine that voter leaving Congress blank?
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10905
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:49 am: |
|
To which numbers are you referring, Kurt? I didn't see an example that matches your hypothesis.
Karen, THANK YOU for capturing the additional research and bringing it over here. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 261
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:58 am: |
|
i will agree that the non vote thing is just a hypotheses but
in ogdensburg district 1,
", the electronic vote count on Election Night was short by 39 votes, or 12.8% of the actual total of 305. Either these were initially counted as blanks, or not counted at all, or some combination of the "
12.8 % not being counted by the machine,that is unacceptable,besides removing citizen oversight they plainly DO NOT WORK |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3342
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:01 am: |
|
I am referring to karen's 10:35 post regarding implausible undervoting rates.
In my county, the top 6 offices on the ballot had undervote rates of 10.0%, 21.0%, 19.9%, 10.5%, 7.7%, & 6.9%. Every one of those people "bothered to show up" but undervoted a key race, at least the best ones we had.
But yes, highish numbers of reportedly COMPLETELY blank ballots need to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. A fraction of 1% is all that is normal. "Blank" for a given race, i.e. undervoting, is RAMPANT!
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 262
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:04 am: |
|
and,
•In Lisbon’s 2nd district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 114 votes for Owens, 110 for Hoffman, and 9 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 116 votes for Owens, 133 for Hoffman, and 12 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 6 absentee ballots, is 2 for Owens, 23 for Hoffman, and 3 for Scozzafava – a net increase of 28 votes. Thus the electronic vote count on Election Night was short by 22 votes, or 8.3% of the actual total.
8.3% is not acceptable,again the electronic counters just DO NOT WORK,they are not accurate |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3343
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:10 am: |
|
BTW, I've never been a fan of opscan. Too many things, accidental AND intentional, can screw up a scanner's count. I see them as a bad option.
If you're going to go opscan, you MUST have a VERY liberal "hand count requested" law.
Opscan has NEVER correctly been labelled "reliable", merely "correctable".
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 263
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:14 am: |
|
dr hayes has proven ,mathmatically that the elctronic counters missed 12.8 %(votes) in one precinct missed 8.3 %(votes) in another precinct...do you feel this is acceptable,kurt? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3344
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 11:17 am: |
|
Acceptable? No, not by a mile. Also not that uncommon, unfortunately.
And not just with THIS opscan, either. It's part of the nature of the beast.
Speaking strictly for ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL, if I had a choice (as in Lancaster County and Chester County, PA) of voting on an opscan or a DRE, I'd take the DRE in a nanosecond, without a moment's hesitation. SLAM DUNK! It's not even a close call. Again, that's just for me. Your mileage may vary.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10907
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 2:34 pm: |
|
The most implausible high undervote rate I found was in the Propositions, which in some towns showed undervotes of over 60% -- yet in the same towns, UNCONTESTED RACES had undervotes of only about 30%.
There were anecdotal reports by some voters that the propositions were missing from their ballots. I think the localized exceptionally high undervotes corroborate that, and this adds to the importance of making sure the ballots can be inspected under public records laws. A ballot inspection would show whether certain sets of voters were not permitted to vote on the propositions. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 419
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Just to fill in some of the background for Karen's last post, I found the Richard Hayes Philips 12.8% calculation here:In Ogdensburg’s 1st district, where there were 305 actual voters at the polls, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 141 votes for Owens, 103 for Hoffman, and 10 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 167 votes for Owens, 119 for Hoffman, and 16 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 9 absentee ballots, is 26 for Owens, 16 for Hoffman, and 6 for Scozzafava – a net increase of 48 votes. Even now, there are reportedly 13 blank ballots out of 315, or 4.1% of the total. But more importantly, the electronic vote count on Election Night was short by 39 votes, or 12.8% of the actual total of 305. Either these were initially counted as blanks, or not counted at all, or some combination of the two. The results listed here match what RHP gives as official results. It's a little confusing that this page calls them Official 2009 General Election Results and then links to this page, which calls them "11/03/2009 Unofficial Election Results". Now maybe they forgot to relabel the 2nd page Official. But I can't find the claimed unofficial results 141,103,10 anywhere but in RHP's article.
RHP believes the difference from unofficial to official should come only from 9 absentee ballots, and therefore could not equal a total of 48 more votes. My first thought is huh? They don't run absentee ballots through the precinct machines? Must be an artifact of years of using lever machines. But I also wonder how many approved provisional and late military ballots there may have been. OK, probably not 39.
At this point I primarily would like to see proof that the unofficial numbers "141 votes for Owens, 103 for Hoffman, and 10 for Scozzafava" were actually posted somewhere, at least in a news article. I can't swallow the 12.8% until that is established. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10908
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Here is a pdf with preliminary numbers from St. Lawrence County. I haven't checked but I would guess they came from here.
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 270
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 7:42 pm: |
|
the article explains whr hayes got the numbers but i agree some kind of verification would help
from the article///
On Friday, November 6, three days after the election, one of the involved campaigns obtained from the Board of Elections a spreadsheet of the preliminary (unofficial) election results, precinct by precinct. Absentee ballots had not yet been counted. This serves as an important “snapshot” with which to compare the final (certified) results. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 420
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 8:36 pm: |
|
The ALLCORACESBYPRECINT.pdf file indicates it was modified Nov 24, and it has the official numbers on page 75 for CITY OF OGDENSBURG - Section 1: 167, 16, 119. It might help to look over that Nov 6 spreadsheet if it can be obtained. It's doubtful, but it would be nice if it had a per-precinct breakdown of candidate counts by source: machine ballots, absentee, provisional, etc. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10910
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Mike, you're right. Come to think of it, the file I posted was the one provided to Richard Hayes Phillips about an hour before they certified.
I think he may have obtained the spreadsheets from one of the campaigns. He's out of town now I think; I'll ask him when he returns. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10911
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Oh, and most of NY hand counts their absentee votes. An exception is New York, NY, which uses a special customization of software on a Sequoia scanner. |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 421
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 10:14 pm: |
|
With a long history of lever machines I would expect most of NY to hand count absentee ballots. Where do they count them? I would hope the absentee ballots would be sent out to the appropriate precincts and counted there on election night, in which case I don't see why the unofficial tally could not include them. But I doubt absentee ballots are counted in the precincts there.
I see that all of these PDF reports are labeled "NTS Election Night Reporting System", are produced by "eReports", and seem to exist aggregated at both county and state levels. The county reports I have seen are titled "Accumulated Race results" and the state one has "Re-Canvas - Districts/Candidates". The terms "Election Night" and "(100%) machines reporting" hint to me that the transfer is electronic and it reports only what passes through the precinct machines.
But I have seen both OFFICIAL and UNOFFICIAL reports from this software. For example, in the OFFICIAL and UNOFFICIAL 2009 general election reports for Albany County (too bad not all counties post both), there is a count difference for ALBANY Ward 001 candidates even though both reports have 100% of precincts reporting. Absentee and other ballots must be making this difference.
So what is this NTS software that seems to aggregate all of NY? Aha, here it is: eSuite. I'm curious when and how absentee and other ballots added to the count. And why doesn't it print anything about them in the official reports? Well, NTS has an Absentee Type Statistics report that gives absentee ballot counts, although not election results.
Maybe knowing the right NTS reports to ask for would help in getting info for NY elections. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3350
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 6:08 am: |
|
Mike, Bev,
Are New York's absentees of a different physical format from their in-precinct ballots? If they are not, why not run them with the others? Or perhaps they are concerned with creases and/or stray marks from mailing?
I can FULLY understand why a lever or DRE place would have a "culture" of handcountnig absentees (it's all you CAN do unless you're Delaware and the poll officials enter them into the DRE's).
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 422
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 8:03 am: |
|
In MA our absentee ballots say they are absentee and use a different color in the header area, have different code stripes, and are pre-folded for mailing. The race layout appears to be the same, however. Some precinct workers say a higher percentage of them have to be inserted twice, but there really is no significant problem running them through AV-OS scanners. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 271
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 8:56 am: |
|
the article explains whr hayes got the numbers but i agree some kind of verification would help
from the article///
On Friday, November 6, three days after the election, one of the involved campaigns obtained from the Board of Elections a spreadsheet of the preliminary (unofficial) election results, precinct by precinct. Absentee ballots had not yet been counted. This serves as an important “snapshot” with which to compare the final (certified) results. |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 272
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 10:31 am: |
|
when i refered to dr hayes article yesterday,kurt picked up on the undrvote part of the peice which i agree is just a theory but we went on to agree that if dr hayes data is credible we had at least 2 areas where the counters missed an unacceptable percent of votes
..... that is assuming that the spreadsheet dr hayes recieved from one campaign used the precinct by precint tape results |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 273
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 10:37 am: |
|
•In DeKalb’s 1st district, where there were 355 actual voters at the polls, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 201 votes for Owens, 128 for Hoffman, and 26 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 189 votes for Owens, 132 votes for Hoffman, and 34 votes for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 15 absentee ballots, is minus 12 for Owens, 4 for Hoffman, and 8 for Scozzafava – a net increase of no votes at all.
•In Lisbon’s 1st district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 146 votes for Owens, 149 for Hoffman, and 13 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 121 votes for Owens, 159 for Hoffman, and 19 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 19 absentee ballots, is minus 25 for Owens, 10 for Hoffman, and 6 for Scozzafava – a net decrease of nine votes.
•In Massena’s 9th district, the preliminary (unofficial) results had shown 108 votes for Owens, 87 for Hoffman, and 2 for Scozzafava. The final (certified) results show 119 votes for Owens, 69 for Hoffman, and 4 for Scozzafava. The difference, which should represent 14 absentee ballots and one special federal ballot, is 11 for Owens, minus 18 for Hoffman, and 2 for Scozzafava – a net decrease of five votes. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3354
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 10:46 am: |
|
I am dismayed chiefly by two facts, IF they continue to prove true:
1) ANY impossible number on ANY official document. By contrast, I'd be rather surprised if there were NOT a few impossible numbers on a preliminary unofficial results sheet. You really have NO IDEA how ridiculously NOT even LOOKED AT prelim reports are.
2) What seems right now like nonchalance in correcting, or even giving a darn about correcting obvious errors. I don't know if I hope the "stories" are true in that or not. On one hand, if they ARE correcting obvious garbage numbers, then somebody's been "crying wolf" a little bit. If not.....CARAMBA!
I understand that those who have never done elections feel that it is UNTHINKABLE that even a tiny bit of at least proofreading wouldn't be done on a prelim, because people put faith in them, and decide things based on them. But trust me, they're usually completely unchecked for even obvious garbage numbers and certainly unedited. "Get it done 15 minutes ago" beats "get it right" every time.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 274
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 10:52 am: |
|
in those 3 precincts(if the official results are correct and dr hayes spreadsheet is correct)the electronic counters evidently reported more votes than they recieved...example massena 9///
108,87,2=197 (unofficial tally)
119,69,4=192(official tally)
and to complicate matters after the unofficial, 15 ab votes were supposed to be added but we get a net decrease
again this is unacceptable |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3355
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 11:09 am: |
|
Main potential "valid" reason is some ballots COULD HAVE BEEN initially scanned twice.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 275
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 11:59 am: |
|
kurt said,
You really have NO IDEA how ridiculously NOT even LOOKED AT prelim reports are.
and
if they ARE correcting obvious garbage numbers,
kurt,you are a guy that trusts machines to give us correct results(at least more than i am)so i gotta ask,,,when you refer to correcting obvious garbage numbers...are you saying there might be garbage numbers because the tapes report was humanly transposed in some way....or are you saying that as an election official....if you see numbers on the tape that seem like garbage you "correct" them?...and how do you correct?
human err,i understand and that correction would come from reexamining the tape results but if "corrections" come from disregarding the tape results,then we are back to pulling rabbits out of hats...please stick to explainations of correcting for a single precinct |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3356
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 12:27 pm: |
|
No, karen,
There are two sources of FAIRLY frequent preliminary report errors EVEN WITH my beloved Danahers. One is obvious and just sad, one is disturbing.
1) The obvious sad one - erroneous hand work, such as from absentee ballot HCPB counts that are just plain wrong.
2) Disturbing - the Danaher software's Election Night "quick" unofficial returns module was buggy. Weird things happen. The most infamous was the Franklin County, Ohio, several thousand "phantom" votes in a precinct problem from 2004. But small errors due to cartridge reading problems were somewhat ordinary. When the official tally is done, the Election Night unofficial tally is checked to be sure the individual machine tapes prove out to the initial computer tally. The most common discrepancy came from cartridges that simply hadn't downloaded at all on Election Night and the prelim report might have been minus one machine's numbers. The tape is considered the official record, absent any good reason to suspect otherwise.
What makes Election Night bugginess troublesome is that people make important decisions based on those reports, and they shouldn't.
But karen, you're right about human transcription being another problem where they do that. It's ridiculous. Nobody is functioning well at all at that time after being at work 15+ hours already. At any rate, NOTHING that comes from the machine's cartridge is EVER taken as gospel truth without a doublecheck. It's why the official tally can take weeks.
The initial count stands up 99+% of the time, but there's always a race where the <1% can be important. The problem with any "it's just one machine that didn't read right" narrative is that it could be a HUGE error, as Franklin Co. found out.
It's also why "we don't have to do precinct level reports" is about the stupidest idea on earth.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 276
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 1:04 pm: |
|
kurt said,
When the official tally is done, the Election Night unofficial tally is checked to be sure the individual machine tapes prove out to the initial computer tally.///im just asking to be sure i understand u correctly.....the tape results are compared to the cartridge info?and thats what you would use to "correct" a single precinct? |
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 277
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 1:07 pm: |
|
The most common discrepancy came from cartridges that simply hadn't downloaded at all on Election Night and the prelim report might have been minus one machine's numbers....here u are talking about multple machines at 1 precinct? |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3357
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 9:12 pm: |
|
"here u are talking about multple machines at 1 precinct?"
Yes...ALWAYS! Never one.
"the tape results are compared to the cartridge info?and thats what you would use to "correct" a single precinct?"
Yes, the tape is king. Keep in mind, though, the precinct absentee ballot hand count is wrong maybe 30-50% of the time in a high turnout election. Not far off (onesies, twosies, usually), but off.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 424
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Not only does a DRE precinct require multiple units, they often should have more than they do. The number of DREs determines how many voters can vote simultaneously. Unfortunately since DREs cost $thousands, it is all too common that there are not enough of them, resulting in long waits. Plain booths are cheap so it's easy to afford plenty of them. They are rarely the bottleneck for paper voting. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3358
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 5:49 am: |
|
Mike,
And actually the voting machines are seldom the bottleneck either in our busiest elections, because Presidential and Gubernatorial years tend to have shortish ballots. The bottleneck tends to be getting signed in to the pollbook to vote.
My state got the "voters per machine" ratio dead wrong for the full ballot face DRE's. An experienced voter can vote an ENTIRE Presidential year ballot in 15 seconds, easy, IF they've prepared. It's MUCH MUCH faster to vote on a Danaher or Advantage than the small "paged" DRE's.
If a precinct has anything close to the "normal" number of voters, two Danahers are plenty.
It's all that electronic "page turning" and "confirmation screen" garbage that slows them down so much. Too much "fluff".
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 278
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 9:57 am: |
|
"here u are talking about multple machines at 1 precinct?"
Yes...ALWAYS! Never one.
ok so here we are comparing apples to oranges because in ny-23 we are talking paper ballots with electronic counters,so 1 tape result for the bulk of the voters and( i am assuming 1 dre for the handicapped)
so we have 5 possibilites for massena 9 losing 5 votes from unofficial to official(after adding 15 ab ballots)
1.human err(the tape results were transposed somehow from the tape to the report)
2.some ballots were ran twice
3.the main counter and the dres total were added incorrectly
4.the dre total was inflated
5.the tape results from the main counter was inflated
more info on the dres used would be helpful here,for example in nhs paperwork i know the dres ballots cast were seperated from the regular paper ballots( i am only assuming that ny-23 had dres btw,if bev could find that info it would be useful) |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3359
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 10:23 am: |
|
karen,
That's a good summary of most of the "could be's". Of course, there's one more that you probably wouldn't like very much. I suppose they COULD BE excluding (disqualifying) ballots that had some technical error that the machine didn't catch.
Not likely, but it could be. We've already covered why that would be possible yet not popular.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
karen reineke
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Karen_r
Post Number: 279
Registered: 12-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 10:34 am: |
|
kurt ads to my list,
6.. I suppose they COULD BE excluding (disqualifying) ballots that had some technical error that the machine didn't catch.
i am trying to be objective and i appreciate you taking the time to read and comment,wether i like the rules or not is not important in this discussion,i think we both agree number 6 is not the most likely explaination (especially in 3 precincts) but it is a possibility and at least it would be a concrete reason(much better than ,o sometimes the counter adds thousands of phantom votes or o sometimes the counter misses 12.8 %)
hopefully hayes and bev will continue investigating and we will get some answers |
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 425
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 11:19 am: |
|
I think we still need to corroborate the unofficial numbers before trying to guess/explain why they differ from the official numbers more than usual.
In responding to my semi-tongue-in-cheek pot shot at DREs, Kurt has me thinking that an interesting topic for another thread would be to develop a table studying the comparative ergonomics of voting by different methods. My only experience with touch screen machines is the AutoMark, although they are not DREs. From this I will concur heartily that having the whole ballot on one screen would be WAY better than paging through screens, with the caveat that it makes no difference for those voting by audio. The folks in Florida's 13th district are certainly through with paged touch screens. And the notion that sign in can be the bottleneck is no surprise, as for us the 20 to 30 seconds it takes to do so is our bottleneck.
Again, it's a subject for another thread, but I think a numerical exploration of the various steps in each voting process would be worthwhile. Mostly I want to know how people regularly end up waiting hours to vote in some places. Never seen it happen. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3360
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, December 4, 2009 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Mike,
Since my June '09 cerebral hemorrhage, I have another reason to prefer Danahers. It is the IDEAL system for someone with a marginal physical disability. No dragging fingers to hit an adjacent area on a touchscreen, causing a "flip", and no worries about an inability to precisely fill an oval.
The physical hardware buttons on the Danaher require a modicum of oomph to register a touch, but not so little that I accidentally register one, as I do right now on ATM machines and photo kiosks with touchscreens.
"Mostly I want to know how people regularly end up waiting hours to vote in some places. Never seen it happen."
I have. It happened because an area EXPLODED in population, yet we were legally prevented from adding precincts due to protracted redistricting litigation. (Vieth v. Jubelierer) Result: over 4,000 voters in a single precinct. Seven hour long lines.
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
