There’s a reason I always warn, when reporting election results on The BradCast, that they have only been tallied by computers to date, and that errors in results often do not come to light until days, weeks or even months after elections…if ever. [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
BUT FIRST UP TODAY… Some thoughts on the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ ‘Doomsday Clock’ which was, this week, ticked forward from ‘100 Seconds until Midnight’ to just ’90 Seconds until Midnight.’ The main reason for the move, the first since 2020, as explained by The Bulletin, whose esteemed scientists, diplomats and Nobel Laureates take such decisions quite seriously, is thanks to “Russia’s war on Ukraine,” its “thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons,” and for “violating international protocols and risking widespread release of radioactive materials” in bringing “its war to the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear reactor sites.”
In response to the metaphorical clock — first unveiled at the dawn of the Cold War in 1947 — being moved closer than ever to a proverbial ‘midnight’, when humanity destroys itself, a Kremlin spokesperson said Wednesday that the move was “really alarming.” (Really? You were “alarmed” by this, Russia? Really?!)
That, on the same day that the U.S. and nearly a dozen European countries finally agreed to send modern battle tanks to Ukraine so the sovereign former Soviet nation can better defend itself from the grotesque, ongoing, hostile invasion by it’s empirical neighbor.
We take the opportunity today to explain why — amid our years of (continuing) anti-war advocacy — we, nonetheless, support Ukraine’s right to defend itself against Russia’s war crimes; agree with critical support being supplied by fellow democratic nations against an autocratic invader; and how we see many of those on the supposed Left in the U.S. that are echoing Kremlin propaganda by, among other things, demanding Ukraine declare a ceasefire and negotiate with their invaders, have been unhelpfully (and wildly) misled.
THEN… Yes, we likely drive regular listeners crazy when reporting results after elections and offering the caveat, over and over again, that reported results in the immediate aftermath are wholly unverified and only tallied by computers — either correctly or incorrectly — and that there is no way to know for certain either way unless and until results of hand-marked paper ballots are examined by actual human beings.
Last week, more than two months since the November midterm elections, we finally learned that a computer tabulator mistallied some of the results in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The error appears to have resulted in at least one loser being named as the winner in a School Board race in Ocean Township. After a probe into “an unrelated issue” caused the County’s Board of Elections to notice potential problems in the tallies, an investigation reportedly found errors in six voting districts across four municipalities.
One candidate named as a loser after November 8 last year appears to have won his race by a single vote after results were correctly re-tallied. But a bunch of races had been mistallied originally thanks to results from at least one precinct being uploaded more than once to the Election Management System’s central tabulator from a USB memory stick.
While there is no evidence of nefariousness in the matter, a spokesperson from the County’s private election vendor, ES&S (the nation’s largest), attempted to downplay what happened as “a human procedural error”. But the fact that it is even possible to upload the same results more than once without a system warning is disturbing. Longtime election and voting system experts have expressed horror at the problem, if not surprise, given the woeful state of NJ’s post-election audit protocols and the nature of proprietary computerized voting system software.
Since the problem has come to light, one state lawmaker has called for passage of a measure that would mandate Open Source software on all voting and tabulation systems in the Garden State, along with the use of paper ballots at polling places. I explain today why Open Source systems (while a fine idea if we must tally ballots with computers) is no panacea, and why the state Senator’s call for “paper ballots” — as opposed to HAND-MARKED paper ballots — will likely ensure that 100% unverifiable touchscreen voting systems, still shamefully used across most of the state at the polls on Election Day, will continue to undermine confidence in NJ elections.
FINALLY… Desi Doyen joins us for our latest Green News Report, with a spate of troubling new studies on the deteriorating state of our climate, but also with a number of stories detailing some good news, of late, in response to it!
Errors in ES&S software? unheard of!