RE: precinct level results

[paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Paul (et al),

 

First off people should understand the you are talking about counting the ballots themselves and counting votes. This is an important distinction, because there are readers that might assume that you are counting votes.

 

Something in what you are concerns me. Its the same concern that I have had for a long time and also a concern that Hillary and Linda Flack had on the ERC -- training.

The section of the ERC report that talked about training really had to do with the training of the staff, but if the staff is poorly trained, then we can't expect much more of the temporary judges. Seasonal judges are told all sorts of thing and there really doesn't appear to be a standard of conduct unless a judge is willing to read the statutes. Even then things can be murky if a self educated and experienced judge runs into a headstrong office staffer that claims to know better or constantly recites the well known mantra of, "we've always done it that way."

 

As far as you issues with the precinct judges and what they do and are supposed to do with counting the ballot - there's no law that pertains to that. What there is are procedures thought up by the local (county) clerk's staff, rules that the clerk and the SoS make, but no laws.

In the past you were supposed to record the number of ballots that you started with, the number you knew to be spoiled, the number cast, and the number stolen by voters (don't laugh, this happens). A bit of math should show you and whoever reads your paperwork as to what the balance works out to.

 

In my precinct in the primary we had troubles with the forms, vs the instructions in the black bag; vs what we'd been trained. Two of us had been to the first training session, the other three had been to some other training sessions. We all had learned something else, but I was the most experienced with years of being a supply judge and was the supply judge at the time.

Our instructions told us to make counts of ballots, but nowhere were we told where to write any of this down. Well we had a form with blank fields for the information, but nothing specific told us to insert that information. Of the five of us only one judge couldn't draw the same conclusion that the rest of us had and insisted on follow the printed procedure to the letter, even though it made not a lick of sense to do that. He was sort of an ass and wanted to go so far as to put a note in the security box that he was signing under duress. But we understand that these things happen and can live with them.

 

My guess about our abberant judge was that he was sure that a) the procedure that we were all violating had some basis in law; b) that if we didn't follow it to the letter that someone with hand cuffs would show up; and c) that no one in the clerk's office could make such an error because govt is somewhere next to godliness.

 

I thought it was simply a mistake and went on with my business. I didn't see a reason to call for support to know where to fill in the blanks, even though nothing told us what to do specifically.

This is a common situation that you can't train people to deal with in a two hour session in which they really don't get a lot of training to begin with.  The clerk's elections trainings for temporary judges can be pretty much covered in about 20 minutes and the rest be stated as, "Use common sense, and try not to call 911 every few minutes." or in other words, "Tie you own damn shoes."

 

The training has been getting worse, not better. The elections staffers try to cover all sorts of things that common sense would deal with. The stuff that should be covered: filling out forms at opening and close of polls, or even something as important as the legal protocols for dealing with poll watchers, etc.

 

Generally, Hillary and Linda Flack were addressing the training of staffers, not judges and polling place workers. But one follows the other. If you hear barking and see fin slapping you should be looking for a beach ball balanced on the tip of a black nose, you're either at the zoo or the circus - not at elections training. Seals can be trained to do tricks, humans cannot.

 

paul tiger

 

> On 11/10/06, Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >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
> >

--
Paul E Condon          
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx