Reply #47: emlev: Is Phillips's work coordinated with Arnebeck's legal demands

[AirAmFan]

for priority manual recounts?

Statistical work could pinpoint the location of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of vote miscounting, depending on how ballots are stored after an election, and for how long they are kept intact!

For example, manual inspection of ballots counted for precincts with incredibly high proportions for Badnarik and Peroutka could lead to physical evidence of what I've called "Ohio Caterpillar Ballot crawl".

Where multiple precincts with different ballot orders had long lines and chaotic conditions, thousands of Ohioans evidently waited hours to vote, punched out the chad next to Kerry's name, but added to Bush's "margin of victory" because their votes were miscounted for other candidates, not for John Kerry.

In post #13 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=172&topic_id=5139 I list 33 specific suspect Cuyahoga polling places together comprising 79 precincts. This work, and work that other people are doing with publicly-available data for other Ohio counties, identifies SPECIFIC PRECINCTS where significant numbers of ballots are highly likely to have been miscounted.

If it still is possible physically to inspect all the ballots that were used to generate each line of the precinct-by-precinct "Canvass Report" online at http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/boe/results , then a hand recount of those specific precincts could include inspection of the BACK of all ballots. Certainly for Benedictine High's precincts Cleveland 4F (#1806) and Cleveland 4N (#1814) (see post #5 in my thread), and very likely for all of the precincts identified there, such inspection would be very fruitful.

It would very likely find more than a thousand Cuyahoga ballots that were counted for one precinct, but stamped on the back in blue with the name of another precinct. And less conservative definitions of excessive votes for minor party candidates than I used, plus recovery of precinct tallies for "Disqualified Candidate", would lead to recovery of hundreds or thousands of additional votes in Cuyahoga alone. (See the notes at the end of post #6 in that same thread.)

County-by-county application of the methodology developed in that thread, or similar methodologies, could lead to recovery of thousands to tens of thousands of miscounted votes if the ballots used to generate Ohio precinct tallies still are intact and stored together.

Does any of Phillips's work similarly pinpoint precincts that should be given high priority for recount?