Report on Los Angeles 1% manual count...

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Start New Thread

Author Message   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 5460 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 3 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 7:42 am:        Report by Judy Alter. Shows that computers sometimes add votes, and miss votes, and that the difference between computer and hand count may change the results. Also reveals that: 1) When there is a discrepancy they do NOT do a larger audit 2) When there is a discrepancy they do NOT notify the candidate 3) When there is a discrepancy they do NOT inform the citizenry. Here is the report, also provided in an attachment at the end. July 18, 2006 REPORT ON THE 1% MANUAL RECOUNT FOR SPECIAL ELECTION NOV. 2005 LA COUNTY By Judy Alter This report analyzes the manual 1% recount for the Special Election of Nov. 2005 in Los Angeles County. The central question I asked is: how often does the computer count match the hand count? I found in the two parts of the Special Election of Nov. 2005, the 8 initiatives and the129 local races, that the hand count and computer count matched an average of 22%: 28 % of the time in the 496 initiatives (62 precincts times 8) and 16% of the time in the 129 local races on that ballot. Added and subtracted votes After watching the actual recounting process in Norwalk after the Primary Elec¬tion on June 6, 2006, I further refined my question about what I can learn about the accuracy of the computer vote-counting. When people examine a ballot for a mark that indicates a vote, people can discern even faint marks. Thus, a logical result from the manual recount will be that the people find more votes than when the computer counted them. In the recount tallies of the initiatives, I found that the computer missed a total of 436 yes votes, 1.3% of 33,863 ballots and 479 no votes, 1.4% of 33,863 ballots. A more serious finding is when the 1% manual recount shows votes that need to be subtracted from the computer totals. Somehow, in the mechanical electronic counting process of the initiatives, the computer added 110 yes votes, and 99 no votes. Although these numbers, 110 and 99, constitute a very small percentage of the votes recounted, the fact that computers can add votes not written by a voter is very disturbing. In the local races, the people recounting found 643 votes that the computer did not count, and 354 votes that the computer added and, thus, had to be subtract from the totals. Changed winners and losers? By looking only at the raw numbers, what I saw appeared to suggest different winners and losers in a few local races. I asked Michael Milroy to analyze the 1% manual recount results using tools found on Excel. He found 4 contests (out of 129), like the one below, where even the 1% manual recount found discrepancies that showed different winners. That result should have triggered a larger manual recount of more precincts in each contest (but apparently did not). The one percent manual recount of precincts that is required by CA election law is too small a number to produce a statistically meaningful audit of our elections. I asked Deborah Wright, information liaison for the LA County Registrar, about what the election officials do with the findings of this 1% manual recount. She said they sometimes recount some batches of ballots on another scanner when the recount shows high discrepancies. They do not notify the candidates nor do they publicize the findings of the recount. I list, below, the serious discrepancies from the 129 local elections for school board, community college board, or water district board, in November 2005 election. -In three contests between 9 to 11 more votes were found by the hand count for an individual candidate; -in 3 contests between 12 to 15 more votes were found by the hand count for an individual candidate; in two contests between 15 to 20 more votes were found by the hand count for an individual candidate; and in one contest 23 more votes were found by the hand count for two candidates. Said another way, in only 16% of the contests people found no differences between the computer count and the hand recount. The hand count seems repeatedly to show that the automatic scanner/computer counts produce highly inaccurate results. In his analysis Michael Milroy addressed this question: do the 1% hand tally results suggest different winners than do the final election returns? (based on the difference between the 1% hand tally votes and the 1% computer-count votes). Example: Candidate / Measure Ballots Cast Computer Count Tally Hand Count R J Buonocore 110 110 Paul Helzer 111 113 L. Sanchez-Ramirez 131 131 Sonny Santa Ines 76 78 Bill Ste Marie 109 111 The winners in this contest suggested by the 1% tally hand count were Sanchez-Ramirez, Helzer and Ste. Marie. The winners suggested by the computer count were Buonocore, Helzer and Sanchez-Ramirez. The actual winners, announced in the final returns, were Buonocore, Helzer and Sanchez-Ramirez. I focus on the difference between the 1% hand tally and the 1% computer count because I don’t think that the 1% hand tally count has much predictive value as to who would have won the final results (it’s a small sample, and it’s not representative of the entire jurisdiction. To rectify this situation Michael suggests: “But I agree with you that the differences between the 1% hand tally votes and 1% computer count votes still warrant further investigation, and a higher percentage recount. (And by the way, that’s why I included the number of precincts in each contest.) In a contest that includes 15 precincts, a 25% hand recount would have involved 4 precincts).” Michael found three other contests where the 1% hand recount showed different winners than the computer count. While the effort to manually recount 1% of LA County’s precincts is worthwhile and carried out with great care, the election officials do not use the results to examine the contests further nor do they publish the results for public scrutiny. I only could study and report on these results because I requested them. Judy Alter Director of Study California Ballots (Protect CA Ballots) Los Angeles 1% manual count - report Manual recount report.doc (36.4 k) * * * * * "We're counting the votes. Get over it." Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.   Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a Post Number: 3100 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:16 am:        What an important report this is. I hope everyone sits up and takes notice. Congratulations, Judy, for documenting so well how inaccurate the machine count was, and that the information about these significant inaccuracies was not shared with the candidates whose races could have been affected, the public, or the media. This shows the danger of relying on an audit. As in this case, when an audit finds significant discrepancies, the differences can be swept under the carpet and ignored. We will never know whether or not the right winners were declared in the elections Judy studied. The 1% audit showed different results, but no one followed up.   Bev Harris Board Administrator Username: Admin Post Number: 5467 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:30 pm:        Judy is one of the citizens who has been slugging away for nearly two years now. I found this report to be very easy to follow and the problems it identifies are clearly spelled out and indicative of a systemic problem. I think she's got another report coming to me, or perhaps already arrived. She's a jewel. * * * * * To the powers that be: "We're counting ALL the votes. Get over it." Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.   Tom Sweet Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Tsweet Post Number: 13 Registered: 06-2006 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:44 am:        You would be amazed at what people do with paper ballots: Mark them with yellow highlighter Mark them with Nail polish Mark them with a fingerprint impression from an ink stamp mark them with stickers cut out names of candidates from the newspaper and put tape them on the ballot   Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a Post Number: 3108 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:35 pm:        I agree that voters sometimes do amazing things to their ballots. (I've participated in looking at the discrepant ballots at elections here in Ireland.) That said, I do not get the impression the kinds of things you mention were what caused the discrepancies mentioned here. And the point is how those ("normal") discrepancies were dealt with. To not even tell the candidates or the public or the media there was a difference, when that difference indicated just by auditing 1% showed that different candidates might have won? Surely you do not think this is okay?!   Catherine Ansbro Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Catherine_a Post Number: 3109 Registered: 12-2004 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:37 pm:        Most of the outlandish things people do to their ballots would cause them to be considered "spoiled" (invalid) in many or most places, so they would probably not have been in the stacks that got counted anyways.   Bruce Sims Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Ubetchaiam Post Number: 854 Registered: 06-2005 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:04 am:        Now LA gets to also deal with the ex Asst. Registrar of Voters in SD, Tim McNamara besides Connie(y) Mac. Lucky them.   Tom Sweet Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Tsweet Post Number: 15 Registered: 06-2006 Best of Black Box? N/A Votes: 0 (A keeper?) Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 5:21 pm:        No Catherine, I was only making comments as to the kind of stuff that is seen, not insinuating that that is the cause of the difference.   Doug Cragoe Voting Rights Forum Participant Username: Dcragoe Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2005 Best of Black Box?  Votes: 2 (A keeper?) Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:14 pm:        Here's another interesting thing about the 1% hand count in L.A. For several years the registrar's office told me that the selection of precincts for the 1% recount was a conscious, deliberate selection done to minimize the number of precincts that had to be counted. The election code calls for an additional precinct to be counted for each contest not in the original 1% selection. With lots of local contests in different precincts in L.A. this means there is a potential to greatly increase the precincts counted by hand, if the selection was truly random. The word "random" is in the CA election code regarding this selection of precincts. And it's in there for one reason - to prevent election management from reporting false results from some precincts when they know there is virtually no possibility of these precincts being selected for a random hand count. For the recent election Judy observed this process was changed - apparently as a result of our objections to the prior selection process. Judy attended a meeting at the registrar's office where the precinct selection was made. She brought along her own set of random numbers that could have been used to select the precincts. But the registrar's people had their own random numbers already printed up on a list and used that instead. What was surprising to me is that the number of precincts counted using the registrar's random selection turned out to be about the same as before, instead of a much larger number as I expected. I would like to have the registrar use dice or random number lists produced by different university math departments instead of generating their own lists. This would increase confidence in the process.

Add Your Message Here Post: -Color- Black Red Green Blue Yellow Purple Orange Cyan Gray White -Font- Arial Courier Symbol Times Verdana -Size- Smallest (-2) Small (-1) Normal Large (+1) Largest (+2) Username: Posting Information: This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here. Password: Options: Enable HTML code in message Automatically activate URLs in message Action:

All original content on this website is Copyright (c) 2008-2009 by Black Box Voting. All rights reserved.
Forums powered by Discus Professional - www.discusware.com.
Original site and logo design is by Andy Markley - art101.com.