What R the odds of PERFECT RECOUNTS in multiple counties
News: Election 2004: Ohio Counties Allegedly Reject Illegal Advice on How to Return a Perfect Recount -- Then Proceed to Return a Perfect Recount
By ADVOCATE STAFF
...Triad Governmental Systems allegedly instructed Hocking County (OH) elections officials on how to do: match preliminary hand and machine recounts perfectly in order to avoid a state statute requiring a countywide manual recount if a 3% sample of county ballots uncovers even one mis- or un-counted ballot.
So, today, The Advocate celebrates those Ohio counties whose elections officials -- having publicly decried the recount effort and expressed their determination to avoid any countywide manual recount -- have done such a "double-plus-good" job on their preliminary recounts that, conveniently, they've made their own dearest wishes come true: Butler, Lucas, Richland, Sandusky, Seneca, and Summit counties, who, all told, recounted well over 23,000 ballots without uncovering even a single mistake in tabulation.
Not even one.
Of course, in none of these counties were recount observers allowed to stand close enough to elections officials to actually see any of the ballots being counted; every county in which an observer asked to inspect an actual electronic voting machine rebuffed such request; one county, Delaware County, continues to refuse to even conduct a recount; and, as mentioned above, it would be a great surprise if Diebold and Triad representatives hadn't visited all the counties mentioned above, because the presidents of those companies seem to admit that they did --
If the F.B.I. continues to be the only investigative body on the case, the world may never know.
Meanwhile, other Ohio counties conducted recounts with less paranormal results. Whereas the six counties above counted 23,000+ ballots with no errors disclosed, tiny Knox County got a perfect score on its 3%-of-ballots recount, then saw approximately 25 votes change columns in the countywide machine recount. The Advocate wonders about the remaining 27,000+ votes never hand-counted in Knox County, given that a machine recount -- notoriously and spectacularly less effective than a hand recount in finding under-, over-, and un-counted votes -- nevertheless led to 25 ballots being re-identified. .
7. Yeah, pretty disturbing recount. I wonder if Nader's recount
was like this? Or were his hand recounts? I don't recall. I liked the article. I think it makes many good points. I don't think many people who are working the elections are computer literate, much less skilled. I think they get a relationship with a vendor and trust that person to handle things. It's really scary.
18. Great point! Can't have a fair recount with dishonest county officials
that hate the fact they have to do a recount. Good gravy, these people have no sense of responsibility. I don't know where it is but earlier there was a link to a Daily Kos summary of observers experiences in all different counties. These county boards just vote on whatever they feel like and call it a good recount. They also seem to call the SOS office any time they are asked to do something they don't want to. Suddenly the SOS office says they don't have to. And some don't let the observers talk. We need 2 or 3 lawyers at every county to file lawsuits every few minutes as the county officials try to side-step every little requirment. With corrupt officials in a lot of the counties there doesn't appear to be much we can do but pick a few at a time and sue.
24. Yes, but how many of them had 33 or more votes changed?
Remember that Ohio is only hand-counting 3% of the ballots while Washington did ALL of them. If a county had 25-40 (or so) changes, you could expect to see one of them pop up in a 3% partial count. But if only, say, eight votes were changed... that likely would translate in Ohio to a "perfect recount" that would lead to the machines recounting the rest of the county.
Add to that the fact that some counties are reassessing all ballots, and not just recounting an existing pile (far more Ohio counties would change if they were simultaneously re-canvassing provisionals, etc) - and it looks like over 20 counties in WA might have shown up as "perfect recounts" on that initial 3% count. Many of the "perfect" Ohio counties ARE coming up with vote discrepancies when they're 100% counted, just not enough that you would expect it to show up in a 3% count.
11. this isn't a recount...this is a retake of the same scene
"in none of these counties were recount observers allowed to stand close enough to elections officials to actually see any of the ballots being counted; every county in which an observer asked to inspect an actual electronic voting machine rebuffed such request"
so...we can complain right? were they afraid we'd see them feeding blank ballots into the machines with 'preconfigured' totals courtesy of that friendly triad employee who visited last week?
I was going to go and help until I realized what was happening and how we were being "rolled". I finally gave up, told the campaign I wouldn't participate in a charade. I was told that it was still important to observe what is going on. To what avail? Is anyone actually doing something about all of this?
15. Hey Thanks Nashua, You guys are great over there unlike the
yahoos in Ohio running those recounts. UNBELIEVABLE! "Against statutes" to pre-select precincts. What a miraculous recount. No mistakes, none...I think the odds are slim and none and slim was just shoved under the rug like the pink elephant that ate this election.
16. fair machines, not tampered with, clean ballots?
If the machines are fair machines, and have not been tampered with, and the ballots are well punched, and the precincts are small, it shouldn't be toooooooo surprising if a hand count and a machine count agree. Think of it: how often has a Diebold bank machine counted out $20 bills to you and given you too many? Never happened to me!
I have not seen any reports about the machine recount/hand count versus *original machine count*. To me, it seems obvious that the comparison to be made should be hand recount versus election night count. Any discrepancy there should trigger a countywide hand recount.
Does anyone know what the numbers are in each of these counties for the recounts versus original counts on election night? Perhaps we can use these to make a stink?
Ah the heck with it. Let's just move to paper ballots and hand counts in the first place, can't we?????
That's the question I'm interested in. Why are they comparing the manual counts to ANOTHER machine count when there is a perfectly good machine count to compare to from election night?? I mean, those are the results in contention, not the "new" machine counts. I feel like I'm missing something. This comparison IS being made, right? If so what are the results?
- I am utterly confused and baffaled and growing more so every day since N2.
The logic of Ohio's recount procedure, which probably assumes that there is no fraud, but faulty counting, so you would test the machines. So the requirement is first, run a test deck through to see that everything is running properly, e.g. that it can read and tally. Then, manually count a random 3% of the ballots, run the same ballots through the machine. If there is a discrepancy, it would follow that there is a discrepancy throughout the rest of the ballots, so you have to manually recount those. If there is no discrepancy, then run the rest of the ballots through the machine for the recount.
With Fraud, the entire prescription should go out the window. Now you are dealing with possibly a cluster effect, or a programmed miscounting in the tabulators. With the first, you are not likely to sample a cluster of stuffed or altered ballots, and the second would be undetectable if you have an algorithm that does not kick in until a critical number of ballots are read.
anyone has reported on, or looked into, the possibility that there might be some intimidation of officials. Katie Blackwell would only need a few state police captains on his side to send out the gooning orders to every county in the state. Was it Operation Pipeline(?) that had the entire Cali state police force conducting racially profiled drug searches; many officers came forward with their objections only after some nosy reporter began snooping around.
Edited on Fri Dec-17-04 02:57 PM by mostly_lurking
My understanding is that undervotes and overvotes have been removed from this process (and only ballots that initially registered a vote are being counted). In such a case I would fully expect most of the 3% manual counts to be perfect. The only exceptions would be due to ballets that have become "soiled" (i.e. an extra chad was knocked out (rare), or a card was folded, etc.)
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.