HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Government & Elections » Election Reform (Group) » Daily News Advocates, and...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:02 PM

Daily News Advocates, and (New York) City Board of Elections Mulls Lever Machines for Upcoming Vote

City Board of Elections Mulls Lever Machines for Upcoming Vote
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
WNYC

By Brigid Bergin : Reporter, WNYC News

The New York City Board of Elections isn't ruling out bringing back the old lever voting machines (PDF) if the dates for the upcoming primary and runoff elections remain unchanged. It's just one of several options to account for a snafu with the new electronic voting machines.

The Board has said repeatedly that it can't run a primary election on September 10 and then turn around and hold a run-off two weeks later using the electronic machines because of all the time it takes to tally the votes, determine the top candidates, print ballots and test the machines.

snip

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2013/feb/19/nyc-board-elections-contemplates-lever-machines-again/


Pull the levers of power
Albany must bring back the old voting machines for the 2013 mayoral election


snip

Letís get it done right. Letís take a break from electronic ballot scanners. Letís press the old, tried-and-true mechanical voting machines back into service.

snip

All of this is strictly routine ó except that the vote scanners cannot process three elections in the span of eight weeks, let alone two contests in two weeks.

Programing, testing and certifying the 3,643 machines to be used on Election Day takes more than a week. Hapless as it is, the Board of Elections should be able to get the scanners ready for the Sept. 10 primary.

But then will come the task of counting votes. The scanners can spit out instant results, but those are acceptable only when candidates are separated by wide margins. Close races require a hand count of paper ballots that can take weeks.

Then comes the work of recalibrating the machines for the next election.

snip

Letís get real. The old lever machines are sitting in a Brooklyn warehouse, protected from dust by plastic covers. Wheel them out and run the elections just the way the city did for decades.

Why did New York switch to scanners in the first place?

snip

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pull-levers-power-article-1.1265732

6 replies, 814 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Daily News Advocates, and (New York) City Board of Elections Mulls Lever Machines for Upcoming Vote (Original post)
Wilms Feb 2013 OP
graham4anything Feb 2013 #1
Peace Patriot Feb 2013 #2
eowyn_of_rohan Jun 2013 #3
Peace Patriot Jun 2013 #4
eowyn_of_rohan Jun 2013 #6
FogerRox Jun 2013 #5

Response to Wilms (Original post)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 01:16 PM

1. What runoff? Christine Quinn is going to easily win.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Original post)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 01:04 PM

2. Electronic 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting in undemocratic, traitorous and downright evil.

New York never ever ever EVER should have abandoned their reliable old lever machines! They were the last holdout and one of the great hopes that our democracy could be saved from ES&S/Diebold sooner rather than later. When they caved, I despaired of a quick democracy revolution, starting with throwing these frigging rigging machines out of our election system. Now we have vote counting in every state largely (75%) controlled by ONE. PRIVATE. FAR RIGHTWING-CONNECTED. CORPORATION. with NO audit controls in half the states and miserably inadequate audits in the other half.

It was one of the most sickening things that has happened in this country, in a decade of sick, perverted events and leaders. New York, New York, New York, WHY DID YOU DO THIS?! Well, I shouldn't get on New Yorkers too much. I'm Californian and I know how it happened here, so it shouldn't surprise me when any other progressive state succumbs to the UTTER CORRUPTION by which ES&S/Diebold has gained this power over our elections. But, jeez, it was such a blow. New York's lever machines were not only reliable and verifiable, they were PAID FOR. They belonged to the PUBLIC. None of this HUGE expense of on-going repairs, 'fixes,' delays, long lines, voter purges and so forth that PRIVATIZED vote counting has brought about--and what a bloody irony it is, since 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting was sold as "more efficient." Yeah, it's "more efficient," all right--more efficient at putting fascists and assholes in Congress, in governors' mansions, in state legislatures. It's more efficient at making the military-police-industrial complex impregnable. It's more efficient at producing massive looting by the rich, and rule by transglobal corporations.

It's a sorry tale that our great, great grandchildren are going to tell about us--if the human race survives climate change and all the other dangers of our "privatized" world that NEEDN'T HAVE BEEN (nuclear power, nuclear war, GMOs, pesticide pollution, bacterial resistance to medication, bee die-offs, oil wars, water wars, mass unemployment, mass starvation, social mayhem....). Corporations are BAD rulers. They operate on a principle of chaotic destructiveness. Corporations are now in control of vote counting in the most powerful country on earth. Truly, the human race may not survive it. But if they do, they are going to curse all of us for our blindness, our quietude, our selfishness and our stupidity. HOW COULD WE LET THIS HAPPEN--that chaos-producing private corporations even took over our vote counting?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 10:09 AM

3. Any nefarious reason you know of why HAVA requires uniform Ward Size?

Hello Peace Patriot -- I apologize that this is off-topic for this thread. Im in Wisconsin, where our fascist governor and RW-controlled legislature plan to ram a bill through tomorrow that decimates voter rights and also takes a few whacks at laws that pertain to election integrity (oxymoron at this point I know).

In complaince with HAVA , our municipalities are divided into Wards containing 1000 people. Can you think of, or do you know of, a way this neat division might benefit the fascist regime?

Thanks very much. I refer to your writings often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eowyn_of_rohan (Reply #3)

Tue Jun 4, 2013, 05:19 AM

4. I don't know why they want 1,000-person "Wards." Not a clue.

But Wisconsin surely is one of the greatest tragedies of the ES&S/Diebold coup d'etat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 9, 2013, 10:39 AM

6. Thank you! & sorry for the delay - distracted by another WI GOP coup this week

You are so right re this being a tragedy. And w/ Sequoia/AVC/Dominion in addition to ES&S - though they are apparently different arms of the same entity...

I think I was on the wrong track with my original question here. Im thinking that election manipulation --application of an algorhythm (right word?) would be easier to get away with in large wards of 1,000 than in small wards.

Here is one of the changes the GOP has proposed to our election laws:

Reporting of election returns by municipalities
Currently, the voters of each ward vote at the same polling place, which is generally separate from other polling places in a municipality. Election returns are reported by ward unless otherwise authorized by law. Currently, no later than 60 days before each September primary and general election, and no later than 30 days before each other election, the governing body of a municipality may combine two or more wards for voting purposes to permit the use of a common polling place. In municipalities with a population of 35,000 or more, a municipality must continue to report all election returns by ward even where wards are combined for voting purposes at a single location. Other municipalities may report returns for combined wards together unless a separate ballot is required in a partisan election, in which case separate returns must be reported for the offices listed on each separate ballot so that the results of the various elections may be determined.

Under this bill, any municipality having a population of 35,000 or more may provide that election returns for any ward having a population of 20 or less will be combined with returns for any adjacent ward, unless separate returns are required to determine the results of an election. A municipality, however, may not combine wards if the total population of the combined wards would exceed the applicable population range for wards in that municipality.

The bill allows the municipal clerk to estimate ward populations for the purpose of combining returns if the population cannot be determined from census results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what concerns me -- do you see anything I am missing or misinterpreting?
-- Co-mingling the data makes it less transparent and accountable. This will affect our ability to analyze election results at the precinct level and do any historical comparison. Seems to tie in with their gerrymandering shell games.

-- Gives power to the clerk to "estimate" populations for the purpose of combining ward returns. Could this be used to commit or cover up election fraud via machines or paper ballots? EG: Estimate high and throw in a few more ballots for candidate of choice. Estimate low to validate machine counts that purged votes.

THANK YOU AGAIN!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eowyn_of_rohan (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 6, 2013, 08:53 PM

5. Werent wards mostly uniform before HAVA?

From a logistical viewpoint I would want to run an election with roughly equal sized wards.

I havent read HAVA since 2005, I do not remember that requirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread