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

Experts Shouldn't Be Needed to Call Outcome of Election [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
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 07:46 PM
Original message
Experts Shouldn't Be Needed to Call Outcome of Election
Advertisements [?]
Albany Times-Union

Experts Shouldn't Be Needed to Call Outcome of Election

By Howard Stanislevic

January 1, 2011

The Court of Appeals' decision in the state Senate District 7 case was flawed. Important testimony from experts -- including mine -- was never heard in its entirety. But the notion that our vote-counting problems would be solved if only we had full hand recounts of all very close elections is also flawed, and would not protect the interests of New York's candidates and voters.

The unheard expert testimony called for a 90 percent initial hand count of that contest because it was so close, among other reasons. But since machine errors had already been found in a 3 percent hand count, the experts upped their percentage to 100 percent to be certain of the winner. The trial court judge, however, refused to hear that testimony, and no higher court ordered him to consider it.


However, in New York, a law to require 100 percent hand counts of contests with a margin of 0.5 percent or less would relegate all contests with margins of just a few votes more -- say, 0.6 percent -- to an inadequate 3 percent hand count. This would provide a huge incentive to stuff the electronic ballot box to increase the computer-generated margin, thereby avoiding the hand count.


Standards developed by experts have been proposed repeatedly over the last few years to our one-party Legislature and two-party state Board of Elections. Our public officials were negligent not to enact such standards. They failed the voters of New York and passed the buck to the courts, which also ultimately failed the voters.

If scientific standards cannot be codified into our election law, then we would be far better off returning to our lever voting system -- the only machines that don't require a panel of experts to determine who won an election.

Howard Stanislevic is the founder of the E-Voter Education Project, a N.Y.-based group dedicated to the demystification of electronic voting. He was asked to appear as an expert witness by Sen. Craig Johnson's attorneys and assisted in the preparation of Professor Stark's testimony. His website is:

Refresh | +17 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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