What Possible Justification: Reprogram Triad For Presidential Race Only

[davidlynch]

I have been bothered by something all day today after listening to a program on KPFT from a couple of days ago. A Triad representative was, in an annoying tone of voice, explaining that he was required to reprogram that Triad machines so that they recount the presidential race only. He sounded slightly condescending, as if he were feigning being frazzled by people's lack of understanding.

For the life of me, I cannot see why creating superfluous recounts of races (which are not in question) could cause harm. Just ignore the unwanted totals. Better still, recounting all the races may provide important clues that could help with everyone's understanding of the anomalous presidential races (e.g., the "ballot shuffle").

Does anyone know about the legal grounds upon which this decision was made? Is there some confounded justification that states that recounting the other races could somehow cause harm to some of the parties? That’s preposterous.

As a software developer, I can tell you that I would be very hesitant about making any programming changes under these circumstances, particularly if the purpose is problem isolation. Any programming changes could inject additional complexity, making the original problems harder to resolve.

This is of course coming from the point of view that the decision to reprogram is innocent and somehow justified.

[shraby]

1. I think he pulled that one out of

thin air to justify fiddling with the machines which is definitely against the law.

[lonestarnot]

11. how bout his ass...pulled it out of his ass!

Now he needs to be internally examined, which is what is going to happend subpoena duces tecum "You are commanded to appear at the place and time designated below...and bring your portable potty"

[Occulus]

2. lol

"I would be very hesitant about making any programming changes under these circumstances, particularly if the purpose is problem isolation."

Not if you knew that the problem wasn't a problem at all. ;)

[Lostnote03]

3. You Got It...lol...n/t

[thanatonautos]

4. Ohio election law on its face does require that only votes in the race ...

for which a recount is requested be tabulated:

§ 3515.04 Procedure for recount; stopping recount

At the time and place fixed for making a recount, the board of elections, in the presence of all witnesses who may be in attendance, shall open the sealed containers containing the ballots to be recounted, and shall recount them. If a county used punch card ballots and if a chad is attached to a punch card ballot by three or four corners, the voter shall be deemed by the board not to have recorded a candidate, question, or issue choice at the particular position on the ballot, and a vote shall not be counted at that particular position on the ballot in the recount. Ballots shall be handled only by the members of the board or by the director or other employees of the board. Witnesses shall be permitted to see the ballots, but they shall not be permitted to touch them, and the board shall not permit the counting or tabulation of votes shown on the ballots for any nomination, or for election to any office or position, or upon any question or issue, other than the votes shown on such ballots for the nomination, election, question, or issue concerning which a recount of ballots was applied for.

See ElectionLaw@Moritz

I think I can see what the people who wrote the law might
have been worried about ... a malicious person could demand
a recount of some minor race, say for dog-catcher in some
county, and if a difference were turned up in some more important
statewide race, a full statewide recount could be initiated
on that basis, or at least, question could be thrown on
the results of the statewide race. It's always a possibility
once the numbers for other races are seen by the recount
observers, which they would be after the ballots were run
through the tabulator if no effort is made to avoid
printing out the results of the other races.

I agree completely as to the security concerns raised by
allowing technicians, unobserved, to reprogram the tabulators
in order to achieve the result of tabulating only one race.

[davidlynch]

7. Great Reply--Stupid Law

Thanks for posting the statute. Now we can see (alas) that Blackwell is standing on firm ground by requesting these programming changes.

But this is still driving me crazy: the law seems wrong-headed. Even given your plausible justification, if differences in other races do exist, does not knowing and/or ignoring those differences make life better? This is a rhetorical question to illustrate my frustration, not to challenge your findings.

In other words, if there happen to be differences in other races (i.e., the machines are wrong), it's better if those differences are kept quiet.

Think about the implications of this line of reasoning.

;-)

[thanatonautos]

9. I'm in full agreement with you ...

as much light should be shed upon the process as
is possible. The results should be completely open
to auditing, at least in my view.

Why the powers that be won't listen to my
view is beyond me.

:)

[roseBudd]

10. By not tallying other races in a recount it makes it easier for swapped

punch cards to not trigger discrepancies. You could cull Kerry ballots, replace them with Bush ballots and not worry about the rest of the totals.

[Kashka-Kat]

5. maybe

funny you should ask, I was just looking at ohio statutes re recounts. Since I'm not fluent in legalese, I'm not sure, but I think it says that recounts are not allowed except for the race for which the recount was applied for. I imagine they're afraid of opening up some other can of worms, besides the one they're already dealing with.

3515.04 ....the board shall not permit the counting or tabulation of votes shown on the ballots for any nomination, or for election to any office or position, or upon any question or issue, other than the votes shown on such ballots for the nomination, election, question or issue concerning which a recount of ballots was applied for....

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

[davidlynch]

8. Thanks Kashka-Kat n/t

[dlaliberte]

12. How about other states?

Do other states have similar laws regarding recounts? Can we find out how the recount laws in Ohio have changed over the years? I.e. maybe the explicit prohibition on recounting anything other than the one applied for is relatively new, in anticipation of conducting fraud.

There is no rational reason that I can think of to ignore miscounts no matter how they are discovered. To explicitly avoid counting that might occur, no matter what the cause, is to explicitly ignore the possibility of mistakes or fraud. This is contrary to the purpose of conducting elections in the first place.

I wonder if such laws against recounting could be considered unconstitutional, in fact, either at the state or federal level.

[Helga Scow Stern]

6. Good question. n/t

[claudiajean]

13. The above referenced Ohio law is similar to...

..the law in all 50 states.

It is standard practice and statute everywhere in America for a recount to only include the race(s) being recounted and no others.

Anywhere a machine is used to tally votes, whether it be a lever machine, punchcard readers, datavote readers, optical scan, touchscreen or other DREs, the counting devices are always re-programmed to count only the race(s) being recounted.

This is definitely not unique to Ohio.

[nashville_brook]

14. this bugs me too especially given that

one of the problems is pointed out by the fact that the state supreme court judgeship got more votes than the presidential race... in some districts...

maybe not a state judge... maybe district?