|
Group:
My wife and I worked one of the two precinct's located at
Flatirons Elementary School, at College Ave. and 7th St., on University
Hill, here in Boulder.
I gave out ballots for maybe half of the day, and 'shuffled' the stack of
100 ballots each time we opened a new batch. I was careful to keep the
'pairs' of ballots together...
We had 443 total ballots cast, including 24 provisional ballots.
Luckily, at around 5 pm, when the last batch of 100 ballots was opened, and
things were slow, it was decided to not shuffle the ballots, to make our final
ballot counting easier.
After the polls had closed, in our final ballot counting, we were way
over in ballots - 12 to be exact.
After a lot of thrashing and re counting, it was discovered the final batch
of ballots we had partially used, did not contain 100 ballots, it only
contained 89 total ballots. We had the proof with the serial numbers on
the ballots, they ended at: blah, blah, blah, 89.
If we had totally used that batch of 100 ballots, we never would have
balanced. And never would have been able to figure out what
happened...
Anybody else find too many, or too few ballots in the packs of 100.
??
Did anyone check ?
Bye, Peter Richards
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:08:50 -0700 Mary Eberle <m.eberle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes:
> We handed out ballots in order at precinct 2181107003 (I think I > remember it correctly) in north Boulder. For the first two hours, I > > didn't even remember about that issue because we were mobbed and > frozen with the door continuously open. But I wasn't doing the > handing > out. I was checking the poll book. > > Only one voter (out of more than 400) asked us if the number > identified him. > > Neal McBurnett wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 06:02:10PM -0700, Some Guy wrote: > > > >>Same with me. Ballots handed out in order. > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Ralph Shnelvar [mailto:ralphs@xxxxxxxxx] > >>Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 1:15 PM > >>What I did notice is that the ballots are being given out in > sequential > >>order. > > > > > > I'd like to know some more details, and how you verified this. > For > > example, at my precinct, the ballot judge cut the deck several > times, > > and/or pulled a random one from the pile, so there would be only > short > > runs of sequential ballots at best. > > > > Did you see just one or two that seemed in order, or did you have > some > > way of actually verifying a very long sequence of numbers? > > > > For the primary, the manual for election judges said to cut the > deck > > or randomize ballots. The manual for this election left that > out. > > After the trial, in front of at least two reporters, I asked > Linda > > Salas if the final instructions for pollworkers (handed out to > supply > > judges with their packets) would include instructions to cut the > deck > > or randomize ballots like the instructions for the primary did. > She > > told me she agreed that they should, and that they would. They > did > > not. Very frustrating.... > > > > But after looking at lots of aspects of this, I think that even so > it > > would be very very hard, and of course illegal, to actually get > even > > undocumentable information about how any significant number of > people > > voted, even given inside help. > > > > Neal McBurnett http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/ > > Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged. GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60 > > > > > > . > > > > > |