READER COMMENTS ON
"200k Votes 'Found' a Month After Election in NYC"
(11 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 12/2/2010 @ 5:50 pm PT...
FTA:
The board had come under heavy criticism during this year's campaign for its management of a new computerized voting system that replaced the antiquated lever machines.
The use of the words "new" and "antiquated" are troubling. They imply that the computerized voting system is somehow superior to the older "lever machines."
One suspects that the use of these two words reflects ignorance on the part of Sam Roberts of The New York Times of a fundamental problem with computerized voting systems: (1) There is no way to know whether a 100% unverifiable DRE counted so much as a single vote or whether the result was pre-programmed; (2) the only way to know whether votes have been accurately counted by an optical scan system is to hand count the paper ballots.
One can't help but wonder whether NYC ever had experienced 200,000 missing votes for a month after an election that was conducted on its "antiquated" levers?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
An Infinitude of Tortoises
said on 12/2/2010 @ 5:56 pm PT...
Ignorance is certainly one possible explanation for the reportage of Sam Roberts.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Joyce McCloy
said on 12/2/2010 @ 7:03 pm PT...
Yes, WTF. Sheesh.
Other candidates who conceded in NY must be kicking themselves in the butt right about now..
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
mick
said on 12/2/2010 @ 7:43 pm PT...
the new mantra to take America into the 21st. Century ,"While the discrepancy between the number of votes counted on election night and those that were ultimately certified is noteworthy,it was not large enough to reverse the results in any election." LOL.
Is counting by human really that hard ?
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 12/3/2010 @ 3:02 am PT...
Forth graders could count accurately our votes by hand.
It can be proven.
Shhh!
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 12/3/2010 @ 3:10 am PT...
I guess that would be accurately count. But I'm old, darn it!
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 12/3/2010 @ 3:40 am PT...
Proofreading is especially important when you can't turn back.
My face is red, but my point is true. Forth graders could count our votes accurately with no problem if two groups were assigned to the task and had to keep counting until both results matched. They would be happy to do it and we would all be richer for it.
Diebold? Forget it!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
ctwatcher
said on 12/3/2010 @ 11:21 am PT...
Ernest A. Canning said on 12/2/2010 @ 5:50 pm PT...
One can't help but wonder whether NYC ever had experienced 200,000 missing votes for a month after an election that was conducted on its "antiquated" levers?
Well, that's all you can do --- wonder --- because unrecorded votes evaporate into the ether on a lever machine. And there were unrecorded votes.
One story that made the rounds in Connecticut about a lever machine ballot position that election after election, always seemed to produce losers. Eventually reportedly a cog or gear of some sort was discovered to have been filed such that in election after election, apparently not all votes cast for that particular ballot position were recorded successfully.
Votes --not ballots --- could be "lost" on a regular basis, because an undervote is not a red flag in and of itself. There was no way to "find" those lost votes, especially in the races farther down the ticket.
If changing out or modifying a particular part conceivable could change the results, and the repair/maintenance process was not understood or viewed as important enough to regulate or oversee, then was there the potential for any voting machine mechanic who served an entire city to impact statewide elections in a small state? What was the potential to mechanically modify elections locally without a fancy degree in computer programming? In larger cities, could the elections result trends described as " X party tends to win in the cities, Y party in the rural areas" ever have been related to who was maintaining the machines vs. how many votes that maintainer could influence if incompetent or dishonest?
Actually, after saying all that, let's look at another area. In some states, while the machines may be new, the means of aggregating the votes may be old. In Connecticut they are aggregated by unregulated, unexamined computers using Excel spreadsheets. If the registrars are not computer savvy about voting machines, why should they be computer savvy about a far more sophisticated computer using an Excel spreadsheet that theoretically could be programmed by the end user to produce particular results using formulas, and the formulas erased before saving the spreadsheet? What is the result "chain of custody" that ensures the original district/precinct results are correctly represented the whole way into the statewide total?
Food for thought for all election geeks.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Anon
said on 12/5/2010 @ 1:55 am PT...
And watch, all the ballots were from predominately poor and ethnic neighborhoods that likely vote democrat?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
R. Mercuri
said on 12/6/2010 @ 5:05 pm PT...
Folks --- get a grip here. The new system in New York City is not FULLY computerized. 100% of the votes are cast on PAPER BALLOTS. Yes, those ballots are scanned and tallied by computers, but the only way the board can, a month after the election, manage to find 199,055 more votes (or ballots) than originally reported is because there's some MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE or possibly FRAUD going on.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Rick H.
said on 12/12/2010 @ 9:55 pm PT...
Brad - Here's a good summary of the Bridgeport clusterfuck in the Conn. gubernatorial race.
http://www.ctpost.com/ne...spread-876032.php#page-1
"Bridgeport was different. Hand-counted ballots represented 1 in 4 votes cast. And the circumstances in which they were counted --- by poll workers following a 15- to 17-hour work day, between midnight and Wednesday morning's sunrise --- were far from conducive to accuracy. What's more, election experts assert, the inclusion of hand counting immediately increases the prospect for error."