|
There is profound misunderstanding about the types of errors that can occur on computerized voting systems. In the past, recounts have been limited to races in which there was a narrow margin between the “winner” and “loser,” which made sense when paper ballots were hand-counted.
On electronic voting systems, however, one error in a computer program is multiplied by the total number of voters who use that program, and recounts may reverse the election result even when there is a large gap between vote totals.
For example, in the May 2006 Primary Election for County Recorder in Pottawotamie County, Iowa, an initial machine count indicated that candidate Duran had received 55% of the votes to candidate Sciortino’s 44%. Not worth a recount? When County Auditor Marilyn Jo Drake hand-counted the same set of optical scan ballots, candidate Sciortino had received 85% of the votes cast, while candidate Duran had only 14%. At this point Drake stopped the machine count, called the Secretary of State's office, and talked to her county Board of Supervisors requesting permission to hand-count all of the county's ballots. The state and county gave Drake permission to do the hand-count, it was carried out the day after the election, and candidate Sciortino won handily. (4) The same problems that can occur with optical scan voting systems can also occur in direct-record electronic voting systems!
This is just one example... Although I am reading lots of DU threads that indicate that you don't think a recount is worth it if Webb is behind by 14,000 votes - I say to you: BULLSHIT.
I hope like hell that the Democratic Party has excellent technical advisors so that they KNOW they should investigate ALL races across the country.
:kick:
|