Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

CT's SOS Bysiewicz: “Optical Scanners Were Remarkably Accurate” -Toothless Summary Contradicts Claim

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
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 12:30 AM
Original message
CT's SOS Bysiewicz: “Optical Scanners Were Remarkably Accurate” -Toothless Summary Contradicts Claim
When is an audit not an audit? When it's handled like this one was in CT. The ASA is right. We need audit laws with TEETH! Bysiewicz' administration of the audit and especially the illogical conclusion drawn from it show why laws that COMPEL election officials to conduct risk-limiting audits are being called for.


Now, I realize Bysiewicz is busy running as an arguably unqualified candidate for state Attorney General. It's also plain to see her remarks on the voting system audit require qualifications she not been forthright with.

And she's not the only one. Have a look at the DETAILS of the audits on the books around the nation. Gums. No teeth. Hence the ASA's comment.

But I digress.



Bysiewicz: “Optical Scanners Were Remarkably Accurate”


By Luther Weeks on April 28, 2010

Press Release: BYSIEWICZ RELEASES FINAL REPORTS ON INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF NOVEMBER 2009 MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND MEMORY CARDS

snip

Unlike Secretary Bysiewicz: We do NOT agree that phoning election officials and getting them to agree that they counted inaccurately provides much confidence in the audit, least of all proof that the machines counted accurately. Nor does disregarding incomplete reports create credibility.

See our comments on the UConn Report:

We have several concerns with these investigations:

1. All counting and review of ballots should be transparent and open to public observation. Both this year and last year we have asked that such counting be open and publicly announced in advance.
2. Simply accepting the word of election officials that they counted inaccurately is hardly reliable, scientific, or likely to instill trust in the integrity of elections. How do we know how accurate the machines are without a complete audit, any error or fraud would likely result in a count difference, and would be very likely dismissed.
3. Even if, in every cases officials are correct that they did not count accurately, it cannot be assumed that the associated machines counted accurately.
4. Simply ignoring the initial results in the analysis of the data provides a simple formula to cover-up, or not recognize error and fraud in the future.

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=3101#counting

snip

We also question if audit would pass muster as “Independent” since all the counting is supervised by the same officials responsible for the conduct of the election in the first place. Only the statistical analysis might be considered independent, being performed by UConn.

We will find it remarkable if anyone disagrees with our conclusions.

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=3135


Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 04:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. This is the universal situation in the US right now:
counting of votes is done, not just by the University of Con but also by the University of Dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. optical scan, for whiter than white teeth
and brighter smiles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-29-10 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Ya mean false teeth. Right?
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Luther's CT VotersCount blog is 1 of my favorites
if not THE favorite.

I always wonder what he'll say next about CT issues or national.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 13th 2014, 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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