You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: OK, let's compare! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-04-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. OK, let's compare!
Edited on Sat Apr-04-09 01:20 AM by Bill Bored
"Compare the ED in Chautauqua County (City of Dunkirk ward 2, ED 4) where a candidate for state Senate received 883 votes, although there were only 563 registered voters. The "solution"? Pad the total vote for every race, creating an apparent undervote of 67% in the presidential race. What else were they gonna do: keep checking the back of the lever machine until it gave a plausible answer?"

Uh yeah. That's EXACTLY what they should have done. And they should have done it BEFORE the election too.

Finally! A precinct in the state of NY with a problem! I was beginning to get suspicious that things seemed to be running a bit too smoothly here, what with no electronic vote counting and all. ;)

How's this for plausible?:

First of all, in the race you are referring to (NY Senate 57th) the margin of victory in the county was 19,137 votes. For the whole contest, it was 59,366. This ain't exactly a FL 2000 situation! And it's about half of Bush's 2004 margin for the whole frickin' State of Ohio! So I must conclude that you have been doing a rather exhaustive search for lever-related anomalies, or perhaps that you had some help.

That's fine. All anomalies should be investigated!

Your characterization of this as a lever machine problem may be incorrect though. And they certainly didn't "pad the total vote for every race" by adding phantom votes like the ones that appear in the precinct for the Senate 57 race. No other candidates had more votes than registered voters, and all had fewer votes than for President which was 375 out of 563, or a turnout of about 67%.

So based on the other precincts in this ward, what we have in this precinct is an anomaly of about 1139-375=764 phantom votes FAVORING THE LOSER -- NOT THE WINNER, in a contest with a victory margin of 59,366 votes. The correct total for the loser is probably about 883-764=119 votes (or less, because this race would have had fewer votes than for President), which would be entirely consistent with the rest of the ward. The anomaly reduced the winner's margin of 56.6% by about 0.7%. Not exactly a "landslide denied!"

And you don't commit election fraud by giving votes to the LOSING candidate in a very obvious way such as this, so I think we can probably rule out malfeasance in this case. You make it sound like some sort of conspiracy though. Was there an EXIT POLL that said the wrong candidate won or something? ;)

As to the precise reason for the anomaly, it could be an error in transcribing the number on the lever counter. 883 might have actually been 083 for example, which would still be pretty consistent with the rest of the ward. This should have been caught in the recanvass but maybe they missed it. Or maybe the machine was zeroed to 800 instead of 000 and someone missed that. They test lever machines by casting 800 votes per position and no more than that many voters are allowed to use one in a single election. If someone left the counter at 800, thinking it was 000, and there were 83 actual votes added, that would explain everything. So it may very well be simple HUMAN error resulting from diligent testing of the machine.

But you know, the good news is that the 67% undervote rate for President in this precinct is way too high! I guess someone will try to claim that it's the real thing so they can bash and replace the levers, even though you've proved it's impossible!

As to the 1139 total, well, what can I say? The cover-up is worse the "crime" I guess. But it's also quite possible that could just be a SOFTWARE GLITCH, depending on how their system would have dealt with the reported phantom votes. One way might be exactly as we see here: add up ALL the votes in the race with the highest apparent turnout (over 100% in this case!), and use that to calculate the undervote. In that case, your lever error looks VERY much like a computer to me! And I didn't even have to do a "source code review" to find it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -2009 Holt Bill. E-Voting: Making a Bad System Worse Wilms  Mar-29-09 02:24 PM   #0 
  - K&R...nt  kster   Mar-29-09 02:44 PM   #1 
  - I see Nancy's losing her touch  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 06:26 PM   #64 
  - I don't know why progress has to be "incremental." What the fuck is this matter with  Peace Patriot   Mar-29-09 03:02 PM   #2 
  - I could not care less how many voting systems have a paper trail  gristy   Mar-29-09 03:07 PM   #3 
  - I meant "no paper trail at all." I chose the phrase carefully. It includes paper ballots  Peace Patriot   Mar-29-09 03:45 PM   #4 
  - Because if you go for "all or nothing" you will get NOTHING.  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 05:45 AM   #9 
     - 100% HCPB ain't going to happen.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 10:05 AM   #13 
  - Here come the NYers! (See this comment by a REAL Democrat!)  Bill Bored   Mar-29-09 04:46 PM   #5 
  - K&R!!  Stevepol   Mar-29-09 05:09 PM   #6 
  - K&R we ALREADY HAVE our rights, the govt is violating them, it's their JOB to guarantee them nt  Land Shark   Mar-29-09 10:23 PM   #7 
  - We've all heard this crap before and I for one am sick of it.  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 05:33 AM   #8 
  - The rhetoric can be nauseating, I agree.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:58 AM   #12 
  - Wilms, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was decided in 2006 on PAPER BALLOTS.  demodonkey   Mar-30-09 06:38 PM   #16 
     - Glad the recount happened in that particular case.  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:48 PM   #18 
        - The recount was requested by the losing candidate, as I recall.  demodonkey   Apr-01-09 09:01 PM   #19 
           - Looks like it was a count or re-count of absentee and provisionals.  Wilms   Apr-02-09 05:49 AM   #20 
           - If there were voter intent issues with the paper ballots, I think lever machines  Bill Bored   Apr-03-09 11:05 PM   #21 
              - Well if history follows the pattern we will get a GOP Gov in 2010  demodonkey   Apr-05-09 06:49 AM   #28 
  - "Real reform?" that's pretty funny....if you're referring to Holt's bill...  Land Shark   Mar-30-09 12:02 PM   #15 
     - You prefer the "dreary future" of paperless DREs for millions of voters if this bill doesn't pass??  Yellow Horse   Mar-30-09 07:03 PM   #17 
        - I've been a major factor in getting rid of paperless DREs in my county at the time  Land Shark   Apr-05-09 02:07 PM   #33 
  - OK, on these two arguments  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-30-09 07:22 AM   #10 
  - ...paper ballots have been used to correct election outcomes, and that will continue...  Wilms   Mar-30-09 09:48 AM   #11 
  - did I say that paper ballots are ALWAYS used to correct election outcomes?  OnTheOtherHand   Mar-30-09 10:35 AM   #14 
     - We DO know the Holt bill is HEADED toward 100% hand counts, only statistics are used to limit work  Land Shark   Apr-05-09 02:10 PM   #35 
        - sorry I missed this  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 04:59 AM   #59 
  - OK, let's compare!  Bill Bored   Apr-04-09 12:58 AM   #22 
     - you know about the local election  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-04-09 01:16 AM   #23 
        - Local elections can only be confirmed with full hand counts.  Bill Bored   Apr-04-09 03:53 AM   #24 
        - I'm surprised this "lever" discussion is still going nowhere after a week.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 02:24 AM   #26 
           - where can it go?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-05-09 08:23 AM   #30 
              - "...a paper audit trail that actually gets audited?" Yeah that. nt  Bill Bored   Apr-05-09 01:06 PM   #32 
              - I'm not not interested? Pardon?  Wilms   Apr-05-09 02:09 PM   #34 
                 - maybe I'm misreading the posts, then  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-06-09 08:07 AM   #36 
                    - Slow down.  Bill Bored   Apr-06-09 05:41 PM   #37 
                       - mmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-07-09 12:28 PM   #38 
                          - I think I said vote switching DURING an election is impossible on levers.  Bill Bored   Apr-07-09 01:40 PM   #39 
                          - mmmmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-07-09 02:17 PM   #40 
                             - Couple of points:  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 12:03 AM   #41 
                                - mmmmmmm  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 08:03 AM   #44 
                                   - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 01:12 PM   #46 
                                      - mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  Wilms   Apr-08-09 09:26 PM   #50 
                                      - You win only because long subject lines have to separated with spaces. nt  Bill Bored   Apr-10-09 05:47 PM   #63 
                                      - well, you don't know that  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 07:37 AM   #52 
                                         - Hmmm. Exit Polls. Andi Novick.  Wilms   Apr-09-09 08:33 AM   #54 
                                            - Wilms, why are you blowing smoke about this?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 03:37 PM   #55 
                                               - Me?  Wilms   Apr-09-09 09:03 PM   #56 
                                               - sure  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 04:52 AM   #58 
                                               - And your doubt about Novick's legal strategy has been noted, repeatedly.  Wilms   Apr-10-09 10:03 AM   #60 
                                               - huh?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-10-09 01:57 PM   #62 
                                               - It's not the state board. It's ERMA.  Wilms   Apr-10-09 10:34 PM   #65 
                                               - how is that a way to keep the levers?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 05:48 AM   #72 
                                               - That's not how some see it.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 09:21 AM   #74 
                                               - nu?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 11:31 AM   #75 
                                               - How many more times do you want to go around this issue?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 12:06 PM   #78 
                                               - so, your view is that the federal case is closed?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 12:24 PM   #79 
                                               - That's a bit rude.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 12:40 PM   #80 
                                               - I'm a bit frustrated  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 01:10 PM   #81 
                                               - How many more times to you want to go around that same point?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 01:46 PM   #82 
                                               - you're only responsible for the weakness of your argument  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 01:49 PM   #83 
                                               - And I already told you there is the issue with the money NY took. n/t  Wilms   Apr-14-09 02:12 PM   #84 
                                               - what part of "Section 301" do you find ambiguous?  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 02:35 PM   #85 
                                               - What part of I went over this with you last summer don't you get?  Wilms   Apr-14-09 02:41 PM   #86 
                                               - you linked to nothing in particular  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 02:48 PM   #87 
                                               - links  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-13-09 01:28 PM   #68 
                                               - Nice work.  Wilms   Apr-14-09 09:11 AM   #73 
                                               - CORRECTION! Hockley-Delgado's margin was 47 votes -- not 67 votes. (Pretty close race.) nt  Bill Bored   Apr-14-09 11:58 AM   #76 
                                               - lessee  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-14-09 12:02 PM   #77 
                                               - Wilms isn't -blowing- smoke  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 12:31 PM   #61 
                          - Now I get it. In fact, you'd trust your vote in an inadequately audited computer tabulated election.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 12:05 AM   #42 
                             - I sometimes wonder  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 07:33 AM   #43 
                                - Obviously there's no perfect system.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 10:30 AM   #45 
                                   - grunt  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-08-09 01:18 PM   #47 
                                      - When was the last time a scanner jockey mentioned anything about a scanner failure?  Bill Bored   Apr-08-09 08:58 PM   #48 
                                      - BB, Im not trying to take your levers, but a fact or two here please  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 11:47 PM   #66 
                                         - I spend about as much time on federal E.I. legislation as Bush spent on Bin Laden!  Bill Bored   Apr-11-09 02:26 AM   #67 
                                            - maybe you should take the time to get to know your own US senators  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-15-09 11:31 PM   #88 
                                      - Don't worry. Be happy.  Wilms   Apr-08-09 09:24 PM   #49 
                                         - that's incorrect  OnTheOtherHand   Apr-09-09 07:27 AM   #51 
                                            - I am mistaken. You did mention a problem attributed to a jam.  Wilms   Apr-09-09 08:17 AM   #53 
  - This is misleading.  garybeck   Apr-04-09 11:24 PM   #25 
  - Holt's 3/5/10% audit will not give a high statistical confidence in close elections.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 06:33 AM   #27 
     - Andy wanted voter-verified paper ballots with meaningful audits, but he was also a realist...  demodonkey   Apr-05-09 06:53 AM   #29 
     - Andy wasn't alone in getting your "state's plight" wrong.  Wilms   Apr-05-09 08:47 AM   #31 
        - Enough of this. I grow tired of being called a liar, and doing so is beneath you Wilms.  demodonkey   Apr-13-09 03:52 PM   #69 
           - No.I didn't call you a liar.  Wilms   Apr-13-09 09:01 PM   #70 
           - NY state is making no arguments for levers; the people of NY State are.  Bill Bored   Apr-14-09 04:25 AM   #71 
     - the article referenced in the OP is plain wrong  garybeck   Apr-17-09 01:49 AM   #89 
        - I'm not defending Tobi, or her rhetoric.  Wilms   Apr-17-09 08:41 AM   #90 
           - I agree with you. I'm just saying it is wrong to say "making a bad system worse"  garybeck   Apr-17-09 11:13 AM   #91 
              - I agree with much of what you wrote.  Wilms   Apr-17-09 07:53 PM   #92 
  - here's my thoughts on this:  WillYourVoteBCounted   Apr-10-09 12:13 AM   #57 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC