Re: precinct level results

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The current instructions to judges for closing the polls are, to me,
very peculiar. They involve counting the ballots three different ways
and then not recording any of these counts on the judges report
form. And, then finally separating the ballots as to ballot style and
counting the separate styles a forth time. None of these counts
involve counting the _votes_, just the ballots. I try to imagine what
use this is, especially as the results are not recorded. But it is the
rules. I know my precinct followed the rules, but I wonder how anyone
knows how many precincts followed the rules, and why it matters. 

As to posting the results at the precinct: This might have made sense
some time in the past, but today the results should be available in
computer processable form from the web. The US Census Bureau posts the
decennial census on the web as comma separated value (CSV) files down
to the census tract level. Surely, the corresponding vote tally files
exist as part of the work product of counting the votes. They should
be posted on the web. (Maybe they are for Boulder Co., but they are
unavailable in Larimer Co. for the 2004 election.) Verifiable Voting
involves making data available in a format that is appropriate for
doing data verification, not merely in a format that is specified in
an outdated law.

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:41:30PM -0700, Margit Johansson wrote:
> Nancy Wurl told me they weren't posted at precincts because they weren't *
> counted* there. They are posted at the County Clerk's office.
> Margit
> 
> Margit Johansson
> 303-442-1668/ margitjo@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> On 11/9/06, paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >Paul (et al),
> >
> >In 04 the same was true in Boulder County. A gal who works with CFVI
> >called me and mentioned that she had been driving around BC looking for the
> >required postings at precinct locations. I was sort of aware of it, but had
> >forgotten since we hadn't done that in years in Boulder.
> >
> >The Law stands and Boulder ignores it. I had a very unpleasant
> >conversation with Jim Burrus, former mouthpiece for the commissioners about
> >this issue. He told me I was making it up, then when he figured out that I
> >wasn't making it up said that it was just too hard to do and I should lay
> >off Linda Salas (who he supported in her re-election bid).
> >
> >Here's the CRS:
> >*1-7-602. Judges to post returns.*
> >*"At any election at a polling place where voting is by paper ballot,
> >voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical voting system, the
> >election judges shall make an abstract of the count of votes, which 
> >abstract
> >shall contain the names of the offices, names of the candidates, ballot
> >titles, and submission clauses of all initiated, referred, or other ballot
> >issues voted upon and the number of votes counted for or against each
> >candidate or ballot issue. The abstract shall be posted in a conspicuous
> >place that can be seen from the outside of the polling place immediately
> >upon completion of the counting. The abstract may be removed at any time
> >after forty-eight hours following the election. Suitable blanks for the
> >abstract required by this section shall be prepared, printed, and furnished
> >to all election judges at the same time and in the same manner as other
> >election supplies."*
> >
> >The response that I got from the clerk's office in regards to this was
> >varied. Nancy Jo understood that the results should be posted at polling
> >locations. Tom and Linda had other ideas. Water under the bridge.
> >Mind you that in 2004 the wording of 1-7-602 was a bit different. It
> >didn't include *"voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical voting
> >system"*, that was stuck added in 2005. What was there in 2004 running
> >back all the way to 1993 was "paper ballot".
> >
> >The Hart/InterCivic system has serialized the ballots themselves in such a
> >way as to have the precinct locations encoded on them. Therefore, after all
> >is said and done, it is VERY EASY to know exactly what the counts were in
> >individual precincts. People that say that they cannot know this are either
> >not well enough informed, or they are simply lying. But that is in Boulder
> >County.
> >
> >Larimer's system uses primarily electronic methods. The ballots in the
> >electronic systems do indeed know what the ballot style is and therefore 
> >the
> >precinct. But if a Larimer voted used a paper ballot, I do not believe that
> >there is a way to track those ballots back to a precinct if they are
> >unbundled at a central location.
> >
> >Whatever excuse election officials may have for not posting results AT THE
> >POLLING LOCATION, it is unacceptable. It is actually a criminal event.
> >
> >paul tiger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-------- Original Message --------
> >Subject: Re: DC Article: "Larimer Shows Up Boulder"
> >From: Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Date: Thu, November 09, 2006 3:14 pm
> >To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:46:48AM -0700, Dr. Charles E. Corry wrote:
> >>    El Paso County, Colorado, the largest county by population in the
> >> state, rejected voting centers two years ago and relied heavily on
> >> traditional precinct balloting in the November 2006 election.
> >>    Few, if any problems were noted and the counting and tabulation
> >> were swiftly completed, despite the fact we use Diebold here,  thanks
> >> to an effective and hard-working county clerk and his staff.
> >>     When looking at the claimed success of Larimer County, after
> >> three troublesome years, one should carefully evaluate the percentage
> >> of voters who used absentee ballots or voted early due to problems in
> >> previous elections with voting centers.
> >
> >I have heard that Larimer County was unable to report precinct level
> >voting results for the 2004 election. No one gave them permission to
> >not report at this level. They just couldn't do it because of poor
> >planning and design. I would say that their 2004 election was a
> >serious failure that no one had the courage and/or power to address.
> >
> >Without even precinct level results, how can one say whether or not
> >the election was properly executed? The next step is to just report
> >the name of the winner without all the pesky details of numbers that
> >are supposed to add up.
> >
> >--
> >Paul E Condon
> >pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx