Yesterday we posted Rachel Maddow’s round-up of “top-of-ticket” races that were still un-“called” on Wednesday after Election Night. Last night, she did us the continuing favor of updating that list with a follow-up detailing a number of those up-in-the-air races that have since been “decided” as based on media calls, candidate concessions, and/or the completion of unofficial tallies by the computers which do that sort of thing…
Reminder: Neither projections of “winners” by the media or concessions by “losers” have any legal standing on the final outcome of an election. Only officially canvassed and certified election results from elections officials do. In all of the races declared as “over” to date, none of them have actually been certified by officials yet, and in virtually every one of them, ballots (where they exist, as they don’t when it comes to Direct Recording Electronic, usually touch-screen, voting machines) have been tallied only by oft-failed, easily-manipulated computer tabulators, with few, if any, such ballots actually being examined by any human beings to assure the computer tabulators have been accurate.
Also, there are still many un-“called” and/or contested races across the nation which are not “top-of-ticket”, but which still matter a great deal to both the candidates and voters affected by them.
This is why this entire blog is now irrelevant. (12 min.)
Hechuva job Peter Pan.
I find it amusing that you use the Murray-Rossi race as an example. Washington is moving to all mail-in balloting: paper and ink. From reading the Brad Blog over the years, I have come to believe this is the only way to do it.
Anyone know how many counties in Wisconsin voted on electronic voting machines or counted votes via electronic machines?
Are their results believable?
Not top of the ticket but reported in today’s Newsday there’s been a swing of almost 4,000 votes from Tim Bishop to Randy Altschuler (NY-1) from Tuesday’s count after a re-canvass of the voting machines.
72Dawg @ 2 said
Paper and ink, yes. Vote-by-Mail, no! Here’s why.
PatGinSD @ 3 asked:
You can check Verified Voting’s “Verifier” to find out. (Note: Most of their records are from ’08, but are likely still mostly accurate today.)
There is no reason anybody should ever be asked to simply “believe” in results produced by concealed vote counting. That would include concealed op-scan counting of paper ballots as far as I’m concerned.