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: 
...
|
| (KY) 6/10 - VENDOR ASSERTS TOTAL CONT... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11096
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 13 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 10:20 am: | 
|
Let's parse out what's wrong in Boone County, Kentucky.
In the May 2010 primary, just 74 votes separated incumbent judge executive* candidates Gary Moore and Cathy Flaig.
* Kentucky's "Judge Executive" position is akin to County Supervisor.
This was the first time Boone County used paper ballots in many years. A high number of voters marked ballots with check-marks or X's instead of filling in the box -- a situation known to produce inconsistency in the optical scan ballot readers.
In a situation with known discrepancies, a hand recount that exactly matches the machine count indicates fraud, since machines do not read and interpret ballots exactly as the human eye. Kentucky is a voter intent state. The checks and Xs matter in a recount, whether or not the machine can read them.
Boone County Clerk Rena Ping estimated a whopping 15 days to count 12,000 ballots, inflating estimated charges to an intimidating fee.
However, counting a single race on 12,000 ballots will take only 2.5 days at most, based on hand count statistics from New Hampshire. In the next post, I will reprint page 92 from the book "Hands On Elections" (by Black Box Voting board member Nancy Tobi) to show you the calculations, based on actual hand count experience instead of Rena Ping's speculation.
Rena Ping recommended paying $500 per day per counter --$62.50 per hour per person. Flaig's attorney estimated $100 per day; actual costs based on New Hampshire hand counts are $10 per hour for two counters, $20 per hour for a counting supervisor. This works out to $80+$80+$160 per day for all three counters, total $320 for three counters, which divides out to an average cost of $107 per day.
Two and a half days for three reasonably paid counters works out to $800 total -- NOT $22,500, as quoted by Rena Ping.
NOW THE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR STEPS IN
If you think a county clerk can intimidate candidates by producing inflated recount figures, wait 'till you see this:
Harp Enterprises, the private contractor that monopolizes ballot printing, programs the voting machine memory cards, and provides Election Day technical support for 96 of Kentucky's 120 counties, really balloons costs.
Kentucky now uses paper ballot eScans, but still uses the paperless Hart eSlate as its accessible voting system. Anyone is allowed to vote on these, not just the disabled. Harp Enterprises** (not to be confused with Hart Intercivic) quotes the following absurd pricing for recounting the paperless eSlate votes.
** Harp Enterprises is a middleman, functioning much like LHS Associates in New England.
First, Harp takes control of the vote recount on the eSlates. (You heard me.)
The candidate, in Kentucky, is supposed to turn over eSlate recounts to Harp Enterprises, who will say what the votes are. This violates Kentucky law, which requires the Circuit Court Judge to control ballot recount processes, and it is also a conflict of interest to turn a recount over to the same private entity that programmed the cards in the first place.
"Trust us," the private company says (though its employees are not certified or sworn, and we don't know their names). "We will tell you what the vote count was."
Now, for this usurpation of the public right to see and authenticate the count, Harp Enterprises claims it needs three technicians, at $1200 per day each, for two full days, to extract the vote counts from machines for about 50 precincts.
Then Harp wants $1500 to transport the information across the street.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
My friends, current US election customs bend the public over a barrel and molest your right to democratic elections. But people aren't squealing.
The ultimate corrective measure will be to ban concealed processes from elections. And by "concealed" I am referring to "concealed from the public." The Kentucky procedure conceals counting from the candidates and also bars the public from watching anything at all.
Hand counting at the polling place, or the Humboldt County process (scanning and releasing ballot photographs BEFORE the election is certified) move us in the right direction.
But to get reform on a larger scale, we need to GET PEOPLE SQUEALING. We need to build the foundation for successful and meaningful reforms -- ie, banning concealed processes from elections -- at the legislative or judicial level.
We need to get to the tipping point. We need to TALK ABOUT THIS. Blog about it. Video examples of concealment.
This isn't about "confidence" and it is certainly not about finding ways to "trust the vote." It's not about paper trails or paper ballots or "security."
This is about CONCEALMENT OF ESSENTIAL ELECTION PROCESSES FROM THE PUBLIC. Until we ban concealment, we have a false democracy, not a real one.
* * * * *
Here I have archived the Boone County recount news article:
NKY.com - June 4, 2010 by Mark Hansel
http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100604/NEWS0103/6050350/Boone-recount-get s-green-light
Boone Recount Gets Green Light
BURLINGTON - Boone County Circuit Judge James R. Schrand has set the surety bond amount and outlined some of the parameters in the Boone County Republican Judge-executive primary recount.
Schrand has determined that Boone County Commissioner Cathy Flaig must put up $6,000 to support the costs associated with the recount. Flaig, who was defeated by 74 votes, according to the election night tally and a subsequent recanvass, is responsible for the cost of the recount because she requested it.
Incumbent Boone County Judge-executive Gary Moore, who was declared the winner in the race, has said previously that he would support Schrand's ruling.
Schrand ruled that Boone Circuit Clerk Diane Murray will take custody of the voting machines, ballots, boxes and all papers pertaining to the election.
Three technicians from Harp Enterprises will retrieve vote information from the eSlate machines, also described as handicap machines, which do not produce a paper ballot. Since some of these machines have no vote totals indicated, Flaig can choose not to have vote information retrieved from those machines if she chooses.
The court will then set a date for the manual recount of paper ballots from the eScan machines, which were used by a large majority of the voters.
Three independent commissioners appointed by the court will then review and recount the eScan ballots in the presence of Murray or a deputy clerk.
Each party to the petition may also have a representative at the recount.
Schrand's estimate for the cost of the recount appears to be inconsistent with totals determined using the guidelines outlined in Thursday's petition hearing, some of which were referred to in the ruling.
Harp charges $1,200 per technician, per day and it would take three technicians about two days to retrieve the information from the recount machines. It would also cost at least $1,500 to transport all of the pertinent materials to the circuit clerk.
The cost of these charges alone is $8,700, which exceeds the amount of the surety bond.
Boone County Clerk Rena´ Ping also testified that it would cost about $500 per person, per day to count the votes, if clerk's office employees were used. Three independent commissioners counting 100 votes per hour would need about 15 days to count the almost 12,000 eScan ballots used in the election. Based on that formula, it would cost another $22,500 to compensate the commissioners.
Bobby Gantley of Harp Enterprises recommended that at least four people be used in the count process to ensure accuracy. Additional recounts necessitated by inconsistent totals could extend the process and the costs. It was also suggested that several teams be used to expedite the process and minimize potential mistakes during the tedious process.
Flaig's attorney, Duane R. Skavdahl, said the estimate of $500 per day is exorbitant, but a cost of just $100 per day would still add $4,500 to the total, using the above formula.
Boone County Attorney Robert Neace said the bond amount seems inconsistent with the expected cost, as it is defined by the order.
"I would think that if a recount would occur as the judge has ordered, the final cost would be significantly more than the judge has ordered," Neace said. "My estimate is that with three people counting, it would take at least three weeks."
A spokesman for Schrand's office said the judge does not comment on pending proceedings.
Moore also questioned the amount of the bond.
"I do have concerns that the bond is too low and under no circumstances should taxpayers have to foot any of this bill," Moore said. "As I have said before, I am confident that the count will remain the same and be consistent with the totals that were reported on election night."
The recount will be the first in the history of Boone County.
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11097
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 8 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 10:26 am: |
|
What it really costs to hand count:
Thanks to Black Box Voting Board Member Nancy Tobi for pulling this together, in her important new book "Hands On Elections", available at Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Hands-Elections-Informational-Handbook-Running/dp/14528061 28/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276108239&sr=8-2
from Hands-On Elections, by Nancy Tobi, p. 92:
This is based on sort and stack method.
*Bottom line: 6 seconds to hand count one contest on a ballot. Includes training time and all. Experienced counters will average 4-5 seconds)*
Costs for Conducting Hand Count Elections
Calculating Contests per Ballot
- The number of contests per ballot varies widely.
- In NH, the typical range on a primary or general election ballot is 12 contests, plus questions.
- The NH state representative contest normally is a multiple-seat race, with as many as 26 candidates running for 13 seats in the same district. We would count this example as 13 contest equivalents. When added to 11 other contests on the ballot, the contest equivalents on this ballot should be estimated as 13 + 11 = 24 contests.
Team Availability on Election Night
*The following estimates should be adjusted according to how many contests or contest equivalents appear on the ballot.*
- 3 hours available (8 PM to 11 PM) X 60 minutes X 60 seconds = 10,800 seconds per team available in one night.
* *
*Assumptions:*
- Second shift (8-11 PM) brings in fresh counters.
- 20 minutes of training and organization for the counting is included in 3 hours
Estimating Hand Counting Staff
Average U.S. precinct in 2006 = 936 registered voters X 67% turnout in general election = 627 ballots X 20 contests/ballot = 12,540 contests to count.
* *
*Assumption: *
It takes approximately *6 seconds* to hand count a contest on a ballot; this number is averaged from the aggregate time for training, organizational working, sorting, stacking, counting and tallying.
- Distributing the ballots
- Sorting the ballots
- Counting the ballots
- Tallying the ballots.
Experienced towns average 4 - 5 seconds to count each contest on a ballot, including training time, sorting, stacking and counting.
* *
*This is based on: *
- Videos and interviews with towns that conduct hand counts efficiently
- Secretary of State experience with hand counting
Calculating Staff
- 12,540 contests to count X 6 seconds for a team to count a contest in NH experience = 75,240 seconds required on election night, divided by 10,800(3-member) team seconds available per night = 7 team s needed.
counters/observers + 3 managers = 31 total staff
*Estimated Staff Costs*
28 counters/observers X 3 hours @ $10/hr = $840
3 managers X 4 hours @ $20/hr = $240
*Total: $1080*
*Using 4 person counting teams: *
$1080 per polling place/627 ballots counted @ 20 contests/ballot = $1.39/ballot, or $0.07/contest on a ballot
* *
*Assumptions:*
- In NH, general election ballots may contain contests for as few as 12 positions per ballot and contests for as many as 25 position equivalents.
- Multi-seat races are harder to count than races with single outcomes.
Hand Count Election Cost Calculator Tool
Dave Berman of the Voter Confidence Committee
(http://www.voterconfidencecommittee.org/) in Humboldt County, California has done a wonderful job pulling these cost estimates together into one spreadsheet cost calculator tool. This can be found here:
*http://tinyurl.com/2dgt82* |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3574
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 10:59 am: |
|
A single contest recount shouldn't take even THAT long. Using the divide into stacks and then count method, it becomes EXTREMELY quick. Lengthy ballots complicate things, but only one race is at issue, right?
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11100
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 11:02 am: |
|
Only one race.
The circuit court requested bond of $6000; the county clerk and Harp together estimated over $30,000; real costs should only be about $1,500. |
V. Kurt Bellman
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Formerelecdir
Post Number: 3575
Registered: 4-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 11:36 am: |
|
I'll do it for a thou.  I might have to keep my head on a swivel to avoid potshots from Wittenbach, though. He might even videotape me to death. 
==========================================
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed". --Abraham Lincoln
|
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11101
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 1:59 pm: |
|
LOL. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11103
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 6:14 pm: |
|
In nearby Campbell County, a candidate for judge executive paid $400 for a hand recount of 1,304 votes. The sum of $22,500 to count 12,000 votes estimated by Boone County Clerk Rena Ping is five times that much per vote, and even the lower sum of $6,000 required by the Boone County circuit judge is 50% more than Campbell County charged. And the Campbell County amount is higher than necessary. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 382
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 11:42 am: |
|
Maybe TW cld count & you cld video, Kurt.
Then reach a consensus re: what reform group to donate the fee to. |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 255
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Not only Kentucky, look at South Carolina.
=======================
Garland says:
“But the biggest losers in this debacle are the people of South Carolina. Their elections, their public officials and some of their news media have been shown to lack credibility. The South Carolina “Democratic” Party, and I use that term loosely, has done as much as they could in this situation to help their Republican teammates and saddle South Carolinians with a one party, elitist political system. The people of South Carolina now face a tremendous uphill battle if they ever hope to have their vote protected through the use of voter verifiable, auditable voting equipment.”
=========================
Bev says:
“My friends, current US election customs bend the public over a barrel and molest your right to democratic elections. But people aren't squealing.”
=========================
Dale says : “Failed Under Continuas Testing.”
====================== |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11108
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Hi Dale - I was going to post that wonderful piece by Garland Favorito, but got distracted with the spreadsheet he attached, then I went to pull all the precinct results - SC results come through Tampa Florida's SOE software. I wanted to nab some time slices but only found one for Horry County and a couple of zero reports. (Wonder why they run a zero report from the central tabulation system?) Am preparing to leave town again for some of that real front lines work; hope to get at least some more stuff posted this weekend! If you have the full piece from Garland, it would be great to post it here. |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 256
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 2:45 pm: |
|
VoterGA Supporters,
On Tuesday June 15, U.S. Senate candidate, Vic Rawl, a former judge and four term state representative filed an election protest concerning the controversial June 9 South Carolina Democratic primary. That primary and all South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S). Mr. Rawl’s claims were heard by the Democratic Party of South Carolina on Thursday June 17. As you already know this is the primary race where Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran, won a 59%-41% victory and will challenge Republican Senator Jim DeMint in November. Greene who paid a $10,000 qualifying fee, held no fundraisers, ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, had no established platform, hired no campaign manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site. This BradBlog link shows his interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890 . Brad Friedman describes it as one of the most bizarre interviews ever seen on television.
But Mr. Greene’s campaign really had nothing to do with election protest and neither he nor his attorney were present at the hearing. Mathematicians, technology professionals and witnesses who experienced irregularities testified or submitted documents on behalf of the Vic Rawl’s protest. The protest focused particularly on the huge discrepancy in the verifiable absentee ballot voting percentages when compared to the statewide unverifiable electronic voting percentages. A spreadsheet illustrating the differences that you can review and use to make your own decision is on the home page of www.voterga.org web site. I submitted this spreadsheet and cover letter to the state party officials a day before the hearing. After all was said and done, the chairs of the South Carolina Democratic Party voted to deny the protest. To understand the magnitude of this decision, here are some specific examples of the astounding, inexplicable discrepancies between the unverifiable total vote count and the mostly verifiable absentee vote count:
· In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%;
· In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 62% to 38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 66% to 33%;
· In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%;
· In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 54% to 46%;
· In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 62% to 38%;
· In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%;
· In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 74% to 26% but won the absentee balloting by only 51% to 49%;
· In Lancaster County, Vic Rawl won the total vote 52% to 48% but won the absentee balloting by 86% to 14%;
· In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 53% to 47% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 69% to 41%;
· In Lee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 62% to38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%;
· In Marion County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 65% to35% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 51% to 49%;
· In Oconee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 59% to 41%;
That is probably enough already to convince most anyone that something was wrong with the election results but there is more:
· In 42 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes while in only 4 counties did Vic Rawl’s absentee percentage of votes exceed his total percentage of votes;
· In 20 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes by a total of 20+ candidate percentage points or more while Vic Rawl’s percentage decreased by the same amount;
· In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee vote count and lose the total vote count and in not one county did Vic Rawl lose the absentee vote count and win the total vote count;
· In all, there is an average of a 17.7% total difference in the Election Day unverifiable electronic vote count and the absentee vote count, nearly the exact margin of Alvin Greene’s 59-41% victory:
· In addition, the statewide undervote in the race was also extraordinarily high, stretching from a minimum of just under 7% to a maximum of nearly 35% for the U.S. Senate race;
For those still not convinced there is even more. About half of the absentee votes were in-person votes that are recorded on the electronic voting machines. The other half were actual physical ballots that were mailed into the elections offices. Therefore, the total percentage difference between mail in absentee votes and all other electronic votes must be about twice as great to compensate for the in-person absentee electronic votes embedded within the absentee vote totals. If the actual mail in ballots were counted, South Carolinians would likely find that the total difference between the verifiable and unverifiable votes would increase by another 18% or so, meaning that Vic Rawl may have actually won the verifiable vote count by about the same 59-41% margin that Alvin Greene allegedly won the election.
Now here is the kicker. South Carolina does not report mail-in absentee ballot votes separately from in-person electronic absentee votes even though those votes are recorded and counted separately before being totaled together and reported. So there is no way for the public to know at this time exactly how many votes of each kind were recorded for the two candidates. The decision by the South Carolina Democratic Party chairs will likely prevent those votes from ever being reported individually. Therefore, the people of South Carolina may never get to see all of the evidence that could indicate election rigging or major calibration errors were present.
State Senator Phil Leventis petitioned the State Election Commission to impound voting machines used in the statewide election but the State Elections Commission and counties are resisting. The State Elections Commission issued a statement claiming that the voting machines have always performed accurately and reliably, a claim that is technically impossible to establish since there is no way to independently audit the voting recording mechanism of the machine. www.scvotes.org. The Charleston Channel 2 news media outlet, “counton2.com” even went so far as to show precinct reports produced internally by the machines and claim their audience that the reports are “independent” audit trails.
Ironically, South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler, began attacking her own candidate, Alvin Greene, immediately after his victory. She claimed he may be charged for a crime in the future and asked him to withdraw. That would have conveniently gotten around the question of whether or not the machines counted correctly. Naturally, most of the local and national media picked up her personal attack on Alvin Greene and ignored the evidence of vote fraud and errors. Greene rightfully won the contest according to the procedures that South Carolina has used for the last six years and the Rawl campaign has made it clear that they do not condone any such personal attacks. Vic Rawl rightfully contends that the election discrepancies warrant a new election in which he may or may not participate. But the biggest losers in this debacle are the people of South Carolina. Their elections, their public officials and some of their news media have been shown to lack credibility. The South Carolina “Democratic” Party, and I use that term loosely, has done as much as they could in this situation to help their Republican teammates and saddle South Carolinians with a one party, elitist political system. The people of South Carolina now face a tremendous uphill battle if they ever hope to have their vote protected through the use of voter verifiable, auditable voting equipment.
Garland |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11109
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Thanks, Dale. Garland Favorito included a South Carolina spreadsheet, which I'll attach, and I'll also provide the list of links for the precinct detail results zip files:
Spreadsheet provided by Garland Favorito
My spreadsheet of detail precinct web addresses provides the download link for every county, every precinct, all races (SOE software being the middleman for South Carolina results publishing; those who have worked with SOE results in Kentucky, North Carolina, Dallas, Florida, and Illinois will find the format is identical.) Also in the spreadsheet are links I found to York and Lancaster County zero reports and a Horry County link as of 11 pm Election Night. The official SOE links are all for Friday June 11.
I pulled the time stamps on each file (found by opening the file and clicking "properties").
MISSING LINKS:
SOE software assigns a number for the county and a number at the time the results file is created. The file numbers come in sequential order from SOE, but there are a few file numbers missing from the sequence. Think of this like a bank statement; it places an asterisk on missing check numbers in the sequence. That's because they may (or may not) be of special interest. By putting all the SOE links onto a spreadsheet, you can readily spot file numbers that are missing from the sequence.
I experimented with testing each South Carolina county using one of the missing sequence numbers, to see if I could locate which county and time slice it was for; it didn't generate any live links for me.
The sequence of assigned numbers would seem to indicate that there should be about six time slices that were generated for each county, but I could only find a single live time slice link from Horry County. SOE usually does keep the interim report links live.
Note that each SOE zip file can be unzipped to a detail.xls file, containing each precinct and the precinct results for each race and ballot question, found at the bottom of the spreadsheet in the tabs, or "sheets".
I actually really like the SOE format, and like it VERY much when the time slices are available, because they can be compiled into kind of a "CT Scan" of an election, a bit like a video of what happens as votes flow into the system during the election. Always very interesting when a vote total drops down as incoming votes go up, or when, as in Broward County Nov. 2008, a candidate's totals disappear altogether, forever, even though he is winning....
Again, my time is very restricted right now, so if anyone does find some of the SOE time slices for South Carolina that would be great. There are only a handful of us who have figured out how to assemble the SOE slices to create the election cat scan. The results are always interesting.
Spreadsheet with links to all SC Excel spreadsheet detail sheets:
|
Mike LaBonte
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mike_labonte
Post Number: 523
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Here is a chart showing the election day and absentee vote percentages for Alvin Greene. The trend lines show that the average difference is a little over 10%.
Also, since most people can't open Office 2007 files here is the Office 2003 XLS version:
(But why is this in the KY thread?) |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 257
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:11 pm: |
|
To Mike,
Why is this in the Kentucky Thread?
Well I think it has to do with the Section Five of HAVA.
============================
At issue is one central provision of the act, the one that says certain states and municipalities must get federal approval prior to changes in voting procedures. This provision, known as Section 5, applies specifically to a number of southern states that in 1965 had a history of disenfranchising black voters. When Congress reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006, they left the criteria for determining states included in Section 5 intact.
==========================
Since I consider that Politicians are the biggest consumers of voters data - and they face huge conflicts of interest as they enact legislation that
crushes voters rights -- I feel that a big swing to a one party system is underway in the deep South.
==============================
Just a thought, Dale |
Dale McClain
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dale
Post Number: 258
Registered: 10-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 10:26 pm: |
|
To Mike, Correction:
Why is this in the Kentucky Thread?
Well I think it has to do with the Section Five of Voting Rights Act. |
|
|
