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 #41: Couple of points: [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 Wed Apr-08-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Couple of points:
Remedy for Chautauqua:

First, fix the bogus inflated undervote rate. Then I would say, since outcome of the election was nowhere near in doubt, there probably does not have to be a legal remedy. But I would find out if the counter on the lever machine was properly zeroed pre-election, read properly on election night and in the recanvass, or if someone just mistyped an extra 8 instead of a 0 or a nothing into the reporting system. That could correct the tally to 83 votes which is plausible.

Had this been a close enough race for this to change the outcome, in addition to the above, the remedy would be to check the public and protective counters, along with the poll books to see exactly how many people voted on the machine. Since no vote switching was possible and the counters can't increment by themselves, we can tell almost exactly how many votes were cast for each candidate, with the exception of the one who got 883. There were about 375 voters altogether (we would know this exactly from the above checks). If we accept that the other candidates got at least as many votes as the machine says, we know how many votes the remaining candidate could possibly have received. It's obviously not 883, but we could set an upper bound of 119. If that's not conclusive, and no one concedes, you go to the court, have the machine tested, inspected, etc. to see if it could have miscounted with enough REAL undervotes. Depending on those results and whether someone concedes, you then start collecting affidavits from voters who used the machine saying how they voted. There were only so many who could have possibly done so and we know who they are from the poll books. I don't see how this is any worse than relying on paper ballots that may have been tampered with post-election when so few votes could change the outcome. And it eliminates all the other software-based risks which are far worse.

Bowen's regs / CD-4:

VERY close race. 10% hand count. A 10% margin discrepancy was supposed to lead to audit expansion. This would have only been a few-vote discrepancy, which led some to suggest that it would expand to a full hand count (or at least a larger audit). Never happened. No one seems to know why except that Charlie Brown conceded. So the question is whether the audit process worked, or was permitted to work. And that has a lot to do with the future of NY, and any other state that thinks they can get recounts that might reverse incorrect election outcomes by finding discrepancies in audits. I'm not saying that Brown would have won. I'm saying we don't know and the audits were supposed to tell us. So did they? Why is it so hard to find out, and why doesn't anyone in CA seem interested? (I guess Prop 8 may be more interesting.)

Case Law:

Yes. It's very difficult to get courts in NY to make the determination that the ballots have not been messed with (absentees are different however and there is good reason for that). The recent Staten Is. recount was only allowed because a claim was made that these were "Emergency Paper Ballots." But in fact, it was illegal because this was a paper ballot election. The levers could have been used; they had not broken down; so it was NOT an emergency. We'll see how easy it will be to get actual recounts if the levers go away. But I suspect in the end we will be heavily dependent on scanner software just like Florida.

Exit Polls / Novick:

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you have previously intimated to Wilms that because Novick cut her teeth in the E.I. movement by hanging out with the usual EPTB suspects, that this somehow means she's not sufficiently capable of critical thinking or something. I don't think she ever said she doesn't support levers. In fact, she first tried to get HCPB for federal elections in NY to comply with HAVA and RETAIN levers for state and local elections. That's hardly anti-lever. And it's probably a lot more than someone like our friend kster has ever done to get HCPBs too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

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