you want hand counts, but then you say hand-counted validations can't be done in six days?

This can't mean nobody can have election returns for weeks if we return to a hand-counted system? Can it?

Maybe since computers are so inefficient and error prone we should go back to hand-written ledgers and checkout receipts. And never, ever use an ATM.

Most of the votes don't get there in advance of the last day to post mark them, so they can't all be counted by the time polls would close.

There's a state website that shows the tallies as they are put in and the percentage of districts completed and the running count. Then it's reported. No problem.

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with how precinct-based hand-counting works. The ballots are all counted at each precinct, publicly, with results posted before ballots move anywhere.

The type of post-electon hand auditing you seem to refer to takes place centrally, with ALL ballots in the same place. Obviously, unless you have a LOT of counting teams, that can take a long time.

Does that help clarify?



"Can't mean nobody"? Triple negatives aside, hopefully you're now clear on how public, precinct-based hand-counting works and are less confused than you were when you wrote your comment.



Perhaps I missed it in my article where I complained about computers being "inefficient"? Seems like you made that part up.

But as to them being error-prone, I'm sure you recognize that when computer tabulators name the loser of an election as the "winner", that's kind of a problem.

What you don't seem to understand, however, is that transactions on ATMs are nothing like secret ballot votes. ATM transactions are transparent in that you can check the transaction at any time to make sure it was recorded accurately. So can your bank. You can go back and show your receipt as evidence, etc. All days, weeks, months and even years later.

That, of course, is NOTHING like voting, which is why different, publicly transparent processes are required before the chain of custody is lost.

Hope that helps and that you won't be quite so lost from here on out either.

counting ballots by all means possible around here, and have been involved in hand recounts, I suspect I know as much as you do about counting ballots. Probably a lot more, since you're obviously missing a few things.

Sure, local counting is distributed and done by a lot more people, but that just means more errors with no easy audit trail and fatigued poll people still counting at two in the morning. We don't let the local polls count absentee ballots when they reach a certain point in order to reduce errors and get people home at a less unreasonable hour.

Maybe I did assume too much thinking you also implied that computers were inefficient, but that makes absolutely no difference when you are just plain wrong about everything else. The problem is not scanning ballots (a technology perfected back in the punchcard days) but lousy equipment and/or software from certain vendors (at least one of whom makes ATMs-- so knows how to make accurate machines) and possibly mistakes at the BoE when they set up the candidates and lines. My county has had problems, but none so far have been with the machines of software-- it's all been unfamiliarity of the voters and poll workers. Sorry-ass politicians and hack election commissioners around the country who have never had to deal with a change before most likely didn't help the transition.

We are NOT going back to hand counts or levers. It's just not gonna happen. If you must have a cause, let it be to identify the specific problems and fix the scanners. Whaddaya know-- it seems they're doing this in the case you mentioned.

BTW, there is no double negative up there-- easily shown if you remember how to diagram sentences and that English often makes no change for the objective case.

Transparency of elections is one of the principal requirements.

I've got to host The Mike Malloy Show, so haven't had time to reply to your MANY misconceptions yet. Will try to do so by tomorrow if not sooner.

You really should learn what you're speaking about, however, before you do so.

More soon...

Um, apparently not, as your latest comment demonstrates yet again.



Right. As I thought. You have no clue about how precinct-based hand-counting works. No, you don't have the same people who have been working the polls all day do the counting at night. It's a different crew entirely. So, no, they are no "fatigued poll people still counting at two in the morning."

As to the "easy audit trail", don't know what you're talking about, since all of the counting is 100% public at the precint, with the public and all parties watching (and all video cameras rolling). The results are posted at the precint then before ballots are moved anywhere. What do you mean "there is "no easy audit trail".

As to "more errors", your assertion for that is based on what exactly? Any actual evidence to support it? Because I've got evidence to demonstrate just the opposite if you'd like me to offer to you. But I'll give you a chance to a redeem yourself first. Have at it.



Right. That doesn't happen in proper precinct-based hand-counts either. I'm sorry you feel it necessary to keep offering opinions on stuff you know nothing about. Worse, that you accuse me of exactlly what you are doing.



Are you embarrassed yet? Or going to keep digging?



Ah, well, that answers that. Yes, you are going to keep digging.

Not sure where you come across the evidence that optical-scan technology has been "perfected", but it's cute that you've got confidence in oft-failed, easily-manipulated technology counting your votes in secret. Cute, but sad.

Yes, the equipment and software is, in fact, lousy. That makes no difference when, even if it was great equipment and software there would still be no way for the citizenry to know if the tabulation it had done was accurate or not (short of, ya know, counting the ballots by hand.)

As to your vote of support for Diebold's ATM technology: A) That has nothing to do with op-scan technology B) Their ATMs have proven both inaccurate AND hackable on many occassions (when, ya know, they've been hacked) and that's with technology that allows for all involved in the transaction to assure it was correct, unlike secret ballot casting.

As to "possibly mistakes at the BoE when they set up the candidates and lines": A) What mistakes? In Palm Beach, where losers were recently named as "winners" by the optical scan technology, there were no mistakes at the BoE. The failure was in the software they used, as the company has now admitted in this case. B) The fact that it's even possible for BoE officials to make "mistakes" when they set up ballots that can result in the wrong candidates being named the "winner" (with nobody ever noticing) is reason enough to avoid such technology all together, it seems to me.



What county is that? And why are you blaming voters and hard working poll workers for the failures of others? Should voters and poll workers need degrees in rocket science in order to cast a simple vote or to help citizens do so? Really?



Thanks, Kreskin. Happy to hear you know what's going to happen in the future. Unfortunately, since you know so little about what is going on now or in the past, you'll forgive me if I ignore your unsubstantiated predictions. By the way, just one large county who has recently gone "back" to hand-counting is Columbia County, NY. You may wish to check out why they did.



"If (I) must have a cause"??! You new here, amigo? For the record, I've been "identifying the specific problems" with the shitty technology used to tabulate our ballots in secret going on a decade now. And no, in Palm Beach County they are not "fixing" the scanners, as Susan Bucher, the Supervisor of Elections there told me this week (and as documentation from Dominion/Sequoia points out), the problem is not in the scanners, it is in the software, and even the latest (and still-uncertified) version of the software has the same problem the current version has.

Bucher would like to change vendors all together, but she correctly observes that the same problems exist with the technology made by ALL of the other certified vendors (ES&S and Diebold) in the state of Florida as well and, unfortunately, the Sunshine State, in all of its idiocy, has made transparent, reliable, public hand-counting of paper ballot illegal.

If you're still confused, even after this note, let me know, and I'll do my best to help you yet again. Or, you can tell me yet again how I don't know what I'm talking about, while you do. Clearly, you do not. But that's okay. You're just an election worker (if I take you at your word), not a hardware or software expert and can't be expected to know anything about the secret vote-counting technology you are foolishly touting.

although you haven't the foggiest idea what county I'm in, or even the state, or what the procedures here are.

Then, again without knowing anything about my background, you assume I know nothing about the technology.

If you were capable of embarrassment, you would hide for a while if you knew my background. Or if you saw what goes on at the polls here.

And then you insult me be calling me a peon in the system. Well, yes, since I retired and lost my pension, I prefer low-pressure work to pick up a few extra bucks to add to my SS and have several almost menial part-time jobs. Working the polls gives me about a thousand bucks a year most years, and whatever I do at BoE headquarters is volunteer work for the local Party, but it gets me lots of access.


And I for this I waited days?

I don't put anyone on ignore, but please just don't talk to me. I might, however, continue to attempt to correct any foolishness I may happen to come across so others will have a chance to not fall for such distortions. A hopeless cause, I know, but it's what I do.

BTW, I read your article about Columbia County, and if the major problem was overvotes, that's easily dealt with here on our systems, and the problem of not filling in the circle is also dealt with here. Just because they are incapable of or unwilling to deal with the machines does not make the machines bad.

(Did I miss the part where their statistical sample showed actual misreading of properly filled out ballots? Don't bother to answer-- I have my own sources.)

Um, when did I call you a liar?



I don't "assume" anything. You've demonstrated as much in the above thread (for example, by comparing ATM technology to op-scan technology, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with each other.)

You also demonstrated you know nothing about how precinct-based hand-counting works.

So what have I inappropriately "assumed"??



Why would I do that? Why don't you tell me your background and tell me what "goes on at the polls" there? So far, from what you have told me, you've demonstrated a tremendous lack of knowledge of the voting system. Would you like to try again -- again? Feel free. I'm all ears. Not sure what you think I should be "embarrassed" about. But I'm sure you'll help me, as I've helped you.



Huh? Perhaps I missed the part where I called you "a peon in the system". Do you now have to simply make things up to try and support whatever argument you're trying to make??



Please do! If I have posted any "foolishness", I certainly hope that you, and/or others, will "correct" it. So far, it seems the only "foolishness" displayed here, however, has been your own. Given that you've not rebutted any of my assertions, I'm guessing you must agree as well.



Um, where did my story on Columbia County say that "the major problem was overvoters". In fact, where did it discuss that at all??? Did you actually read my story?

As to "them problem of not filling in the circle", I don't know that my story dealt with that much either, but, pray tell, how has that been "dealt with" in your so-far unnamed county? (You might wanna let me know which county that is, or at least which technology you use there, so we can have a specific discussion about it.)



That's correct. What makes the machines bad is that study after study after study has found them to be bad, to drop votes, to report inaccurate results and, worst of all, provide secret vote counting that is not overseen by the public to assure accuracy.



There have been many such examples of that. Would you like me to provide them to you? Or should we just rely on your super secret, unspecified "sources"?

Don't bother to answer, since I know you won't...just as you haven't bothered to answer any of my previous questions on this thread.

Are you embarrassed yet? If not, I'm guessing you're not capable of it. Replying pseudonymously, however, rather than putting your name on everything you post on the Internet, as I do, probably makes that much easier for ya.

I personally witnessed what could only be called a hacked DRE (this can happen with tabulators too) in Fl in 2004. A machine used in the election was seen to occasionally switch votes that were cast - and always in the same direction - and always for certain races.

The only way this could happen was computer code designed to defeat the election.

The only way to avoid this is a paper trail subject to public counting - because computers are vulnerable. At least there must be a way to verify that DRE's, scanners, tabulators, etc. are secure. Right now that is not possible.

I'm not as thrilled by mail in ballots as others. We've had reports of ballots found in the trash, ballots disallowed by "volunteers" when mailed in, and there is a possibility of a mailed ballot identifying how one votes.

Why is that? Because they remained British?

You are indeed a TreasonousBastard.

The US needs to end its electronic voting fiasco.