[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: precinct level results
I didn't mean to say that the instructions didn't say where to put the
number. I meant to say that the instruction say specificially that,
having done the count, one should not report the number. Data is not
treated this way even in a for dummies track of high school
science. (Count carefully the negatives in the above.)
The instructions on filling out the Judges Report Form on pg 79,
Section 1, item 2, say: "Count the number of ballots received(sic) and
note the number on a scrap piece of paper." Scribbling data on scraps of
paper is not good. But there it is. (Page 77 seems to be instructions
for the Judges Report Form that are left over from the Primary, as
they mention separating ballots by party, which would be a highly
irregular action in a general election (and quite impossible).)
I mark 'received' with (sic) because the text of item 2 seems to have
been constructed by copy and paste from an earlier version in which
specific mention was made of what to write on line 1a of the
form. These instructions make no mention of how the written in numbers
get onto line 1a, which is OK because that should have been filled in
before the polls opened. Here 'received' is an extraneous word,
entirely inappropriate for the context (in my confused opinion).
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 05:04:44PM -0700, paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> <div>Paul,</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>I think that you should let you ego inflate for a while and put together some ideas. you might be surprised at how many have the same ideas. Coalition moves us forward. Silence makes us stagnate.</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>Two things that bother me right now that we might be able to address this session are: audit trail paper and LATs.</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>One of the founding members of CFVI deals with thermal papers in his day job as sales for Fuji. The idea that zinc oxide paper only comes on rolls is a falacy invented by the vendors that didn't want to have audit trails in the first place and spent a wicked amount of cash lobbying against them.</div>
> <div>Every time I suggested sheet fed thermal printers I was told that they don't exist. They do exist and if a vendor is willing to lie about that, what else are they lying about?</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>The second issue is Logic and Accuracy Testing. I think that Hillary will re-open the party and public involvement. Linda Salas has had an interpretation of the law that told us that she wanted to do LATs on the sly. Something either got screwed up in the laws in 05 and she can get away with secret moves; or she's broken the law at least four times this year alone.</div>
> <div>The law concerning testing need bolstering, to allow or even to force clerks into having oversite.</div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>paul tiger<BR></div>
> <DIV id=wmMessageComp name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: precinct level results<BR>From: Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, November 10, 2006 11:35 am<BR>To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 09:21:10AM -0700, Margit Johansson wrote:<BR>> Why don't you start keeping a list of things that might be changed in<BR>> current law, that should be considered in the upcoming legislative session.<BR>> Margit<BR><BR>I don't know whether or not this counting procedure is required by<BR>law, or is merely an invention of someone in SoS Office, or in Boulder<BR>Co. And, I don't know how to get an answer from an authority that I<BR>trust. I don't have the money to pay for legal counsel. Is there case<BR>law that negates a plain reading of the statute text? <BR><BR>Generating my own agenda of changes to law might be a fun ego trip,<BR>but if its noticed at all, it could easily be used as a check list of<BR>proposals to be silenced, much as the verifiable paper trail rule has<BR>been silenced by installing VBO that produces an useless paper record.<BR>(It is effectively useless, because, among other problems, if it does<BR>show a flaw in the electronic record, the flimsy paper will not<BR>survive the physical handling of a legal proceeding, and the case will<BR>die when the evidence disintegrates, or is lost.)<BR><BR>I think there should be serious study of both existing law and existing<BR>practice at a level of detail that I surely cannot handle alone. I'd<BR>like to contribute to such a study, but generating my own hit-list is<BR>a dangerous idea. <BR><BR>The new Clerk has spoken of getting community input on what should be<BR>done to fix elections in BC. As a way to get community input, she can<BR>form a study group and staff it with people she thinks will come up<BR>with a realistic proposal. If laws really do need changing, the list<BR>of changes should come from the Clerk, or from her study group.<BR><BR>Paul C.<BR>> <BR>> Margit Johansson<BR>> 303-442-1668/ margitjo@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 11/10/06, Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> >The current instructions to judges for closing the polls are, to me,<BR>> >very peculiar. They involve counting the ballots three different ways<BR>> >and then not recording any of these counts on the judges report<BR>> >form. And, then finally separating the ballots as to ballot style and<BR>> >counting the separate styles a forth time. None of these counts<BR>> >involve counting the _votes_, just the ballots. I try to imagine what<BR>> >use this is, especially as the results are not recorded. But it is the<BR>> >rules. I know my precinct followed the rules, but I wonder how anyone<BR>> >knows how many precincts followed the rules, and why it matters.<BR>> ><BR>> >As to posting the results at the precinct: This might have made sense<BR>> >some time in the past, but today the results should be available in<BR>> >computer processable form from the web. The US Census Bureau posts the<BR>> >decennial census on the web as comma separated value (CSV) files down<BR>> >to the census tract level. Surely, the corresponding vote tally files<BR>> >exist as part of the work product of counting the votes. They should<BR>> >be posted on the web. (Maybe they are for Boulder Co., but they are<BR>> >unavailable in Larimer Co. for the 2004 election.) Verifiable Voting<BR>> >involves making data available in a format that is appropriate for<BR>> >doing data verification, not merely in a format that is specified in<BR>> >an outdated law.<BR>> ><BR>> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:41:30PM -0700, Margit Johansson wrote:<BR>> >> Nancy Wurl told me they weren't posted at precincts because they weren't<BR>> >*<BR>> >> counted* there. They are posted at the County Clerk's office.<BR>> >> Margit<BR>> >><BR>> >> Margit Johansson<BR>> >> 303-442-1668/ margitjo@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> On 11/9/06, paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <paul.tiger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >Paul (et al),<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >In 04 the same was true in Boulder County. A gal who works with CFVI<BR>> >> >called me and mentioned that she had been driving around BC looking for<BR>> >the<BR>> >> >required postings at precinct locations. I was sort of aware of it, but<BR>> >had<BR>> >> >forgotten since we hadn't done that in years in Boulder.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >The Law stands and Boulder ignores it. I had a very unpleasant<BR>> >> >conversation with Jim Burrus, former mouthpiece for the commissioners<BR>> >about<BR>> >> >this issue. He told me I was making it up, then when he figured out<BR>> >that I<BR>> >> >wasn't making it up said that it was just too hard to do and I should<BR>> >lay<BR>> >> >off Linda Salas (who he supported in her re-election bid).<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >Here's the CRS:<BR>> >> >*1-7-602. Judges to post returns.*<BR>> >> >*"At any election at a polling place where voting is by paper ballot,<BR>> >> >voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical voting system, the<BR>> >> >election judges shall make an abstract of the count of votes, which<BR>> >> >abstract<BR>> >> >shall contain the names of the offices, names of the candidates, ballot<BR>> >> >titles, and submission clauses of all initiated, referred, or other<BR>> >ballot<BR>> >> >issues voted upon and the number of votes counted for or against each<BR>> >> >candidate or ballot issue. The abstract shall be posted in a<BR>> >conspicuous<BR>> >> >place that can be seen from the outside of the polling place<BR>> >immediately<BR>> >> >upon completion of the counting. The abstract may be removed at any<BR>> >time<BR>> >> >after forty-eight hours following the election. Suitable blanks for the<BR>> >> >abstract required by this section shall be prepared, printed, and<BR>> >furnished<BR>> >> >to all election judges at the same time and in the same manner as other<BR>> >> >election supplies."*<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >The response that I got from the clerk's office in regards to this was<BR>> >> >varied. Nancy Jo understood that the results should be posted at<BR>> >polling<BR>> >> >locations. Tom and Linda had other ideas. Water under the bridge.<BR>> >> >Mind you that in 2004 the wording of 1-7-602 was a bit different. It<BR>> >> >didn't include *"voting machine, or electronic or electromechanical<BR>> >voting<BR>> >> >system"*, that was stuck added in 2005. What was there in 2004 running<BR>> >> >back all the way to 1993 was "paper ballot".<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >The Hart/InterCivic system has serialized the ballots themselves in<BR>> >such a<BR>> >> >way as to have the precinct locations encoded on them. Therefore, after<BR>> >all<BR>> >> >is said and done, it is VERY EASY to know exactly what the counts were<BR>> >in<BR>> >> >individual precincts. People that say that they cannot know this are<BR>> >either<BR>> >> >not well enough informed, or they are simply lying. But that is in<BR>> >Boulder<BR>> >> >County.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >Larimer's system uses primarily electronic methods. The ballots in the<BR>> >> >electronic systems do indeed know what the ballot style is and<BR>> >therefore<BR>> >> & ?
> gt;the<BR>> >> >precinct. But if a Larimer voted used a paper ballot, I do not believe<BR>> >that<BR>> >> >there is a way to track those ballots back to a precinct if they are<BR>> >> >unbundled at a central location.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >Whatever excuse election officials may have for not posting results AT<BR>> >THE<BR>> >> >POLLING LOCATION, it is unacceptable. It is actually a criminal event.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >paul tiger<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >-------- Original Message --------<BR>> >> >Subject: Re: DC Article: "Larimer Shows Up Boulder"<BR>> >> >From: Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>> >> >Date: Thu, November 09, 2006 3:14 pm<BR>> >> >To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 10:46:48AM -0700, Dr. Charles E. Corry wrote:<BR>> >> >> El Paso County, Colorado, the largest county by population in the<BR>> >> >> state, rejected voting centers two years ago and relied heavily on<BR>> >> >> traditional precinct balloting in the November 2006 election.<BR>> >> >> Few, if any problems were noted and the counting and tabulation<BR>> >> >> were swiftly completed, despite the fact we use Diebold here, thanks<BR>> >> >> to an effective and hard-working county clerk and his staff.<BR>> >> >> When looking at the claimed success of Larimer County, after<BR>> >> >> three troublesome years, one should carefully evaluate the percentage<BR>> >> >> of voters who used absentee ballots or voted early due to problems in<BR>> >> >> previous elections with voting centers.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >I have heard that Larimer County was unable to report precinct level<BR>> >> >voting results for the 2004 election. No one gave them permission to<BR>> >> >not report at this level. They just couldn't do it because of poor<BR>> >> >planning and design. I would say that their 2004 election was a<BR>> >> >serious failure that no one had the courage and/or power to address.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >Without even precinct level results, how can one say whether or not<BR>> >> >the election was properly executed? The next step is to just report<BR>> >> >the name of the winner without all the pesky details of numbers that<BR>> >> >are supposed to add up.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >--<BR>> >> >Paul E Condon<BR>> >> >pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> ><BR>> >--<BR>> >Paul E Condon<BR>> >pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> ><BR><BR>-- <BR>Paul E Condon <BR>pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx