Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Another Leverless Bush-v.-Gore-Style Election in New York :-(

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 Dec-01-10 02:42 AM
Original message
Another Leverless Bush-v.-Gore-Style Election in New York :-(
Edited on Wed Dec-01-10 02:46 AM by Bill Bored
We all know paperless e-vote counting is a bad idea. But watch what happens when elections go LEVERLESS!:



Discrepancies Found on Voting Machines in 7th Senate Race
Court moves closer to expanding audit, hand recount possible.

By Geoffrey Walter | November 30, 2010


-snip-

Johnson (D) campaign attorney Steve Schlesinger said that despite the presence of the referees, the "threshold issue" remains the counting of ballots and the audit of the electronic voting machines. At last count, Martins (R) lead the race by 431 votes.

There are 3,876 reported undervotes - where no vote was cast in the specific race - and 43 overvotes. Uncounted ballots also exist in at least three machines. Republican Board of Election chair John Ryan told the court that the machines subjected to audit were hand counted and compared to their respective tape recording. Two machines were found to have one extra ballot, while one machine had two extra ballots. "The question then becomes how did it get there?" Ryan said.

-snip-

According to Nassau County attorney John Ciampoli, of the seven machines in the 7th Senate District subjected to audit, six are complete, but two have failed ballots.

-snip-

"I am concerned that it's not moving quickly enough," (Judge) Warshawsky said. "Do we now set a precedent of hand counting every race that's close?" (DUH!) Warshawsky also acknowledged in court that the case would be moving to the appellate division for appeals shortly.

-snip-

Oh and there's more: This race determines whether the Republicans will control the NY State Senate! The best our Dems can hope for now is a tie because they conceded to the Repubs in another close race WITHOUT a full hand count. I guess they were afraid to set a dangerous precedent! :sarcasm:
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. about the discrepancies
Undervotes aren't unusual. The overvotes shouldn't have happened, the article didn't
say what the cause was. Was it confusion over Fusion voting, or what?

As for the discrepancies
"Two machines were found to have one extra ballot, while one machine had two extra ballots."

It is weird for machines to have extra ballots. How does that happen?
Do they mean there were ballots in the machines but no votes - i.e blank ballots?
Or do they mean that there were more ballots than voters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The article is a bit vague. It gets some points wrong, but...
Edited on Wed Dec-01-10 01:14 PM by Bill Bored
...it clearly shows that our new election system is in a state of chaos in which apparent losers of close races have to go to court to try to get hand counts, and apparent winners try to stop them.

I can't explain the apparent existence of extra ballots, but I have heard reports that scanners have eaten paper ballots without incrementing their public or protective counters. And these ballots are single-page! Wait til they start scanning multi-page ballots!

What bothers me most is that in other close races, the Democrats have just conceded. Is this "count every vote" or "equal protection?" I don't think so.

The bottom line is that despite the paper ballots, the new LEVERLESS voting system is so hard to verify that no one wants to do it -- not even the apparent losers of some crucial close elections!

Look what the judge in this case said:

"Do we now set a precedent of hand counting every race that's close?" (DUH!) Warshawsky also acknowledged in court that the case would be moving to the appellate division for appeals shortly.

So even the Judiciary cannot resolve this in a timely manner -- if at all.

Will they set a precedent of NOT hand counting every race that's close? :wtf:
(Bush v. Gore already set THAT one of course.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-01-10 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. And without a hand count, we don't know that the undervotes were really undervotes! nt
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 Sat Sep 20th 2014, 12:25 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