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 #44: mmmmmmm [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
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-08-09 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. mmmmmmm
You're assuming that the lever counters weren't checked? I think they probably were, although one would have to check with the officials, and even then one might not be sure. Tinkering with the candidate's vote count might have been a better idea than tinkering with the total vote, but I don't know that election boards have the authority to start taking votes away from candidates, even impossible votes. It's an awkward situation -- luckily not consequential in this case.

I'm sure you're smart enough to argue the other side of your own argument, and no one else is reading this, so I won't bother with a rejoinder.

You could, y'know, examine the PEMT results. You apparently haven't, which makes me think this is a red herring, especially with regard to New York.

Your assertion about NY courts seems pretty labored, considering how few paper ballot elections there are. (WRT Staten Island, you seem to be conflating the standard for declaring the ballot boxes secure with the mechanism for ordering a 'recount.') But if Andi Novick knows how to fix election law to make it as safe as possible for the systems the state is currently under court order to purchase, I trust she cares enough about the state to offer any ideas she has.

On the subject of Novick, there's really no need to make stuff up about my own views. But I'll quote Novick again: "On a personal note I am not an advocate of levers (although I do prefer them to computerized voting systems) however I will argue they are HAVA compliant as a matter of law because if the Court accepts this legal analysis then the DOJ's motion and request for a magistrate to take over our elections would have to be denied." It's quite possible that she has changed her mind.
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