Need some help on the math of this 3% recount thing

[WilliamPitt]

They did 3% and picked up about 300 votes. Common math would tell me that a 100% recount would pick up 10,000 votes. What are any arguments you could make against me making a statement like that in an essay?

I already know about the fact that the 'random' selection of the counties was nonsense, that it wasn't random at all, but that's level two. I'm asking about simple math.

Thanks.

[illflem]

1. I think your math is wrong

I get 9999 more votes. 33.33 X 300 = 9999

[WilliamPitt]

4. I added one too many zeroes

[wlubin]

41. No your math is ok.

3% of the count gave Kerry 300 votes. 100/3 = 33.333333... on and on

Therefore 300 * 33.333333... = 10,000

Truncating the 33.333333... to 33.33 is not as accurate.

[unblock]

2. 10,000

[No Mandate Here.]

3. 3% x 33.33 = 100%

300 X 33.33 = 9990

If these were the "safe" counties for Blackwell, the multiplier would be much higher than 33.3 (hopefully)

[illflem]

10. I don't fully understand

were the additional votes picked up by the 3% or by a 100% machine count.
My thinking was that if the 3% machine and hand count came out the same that the rest of the recount would be done by machine.
Could be wrong

[SharonRB]

58. I agree with your assessment.

This is exactly what I thought.

[berniew1]

15. Was the 300 for one county; if so get total of 880,000?

If this is for one county; multiply by 88 counties and get 880,000;
There were several counties where a difference of over 300 has been documented such as Cuyahoga, and others on the new post.
Lots of fraud has been documented.

[bemis12]

17. Nonsense

It's for the state. And the extrapolation for the state isn't even accurate, as it includes votes found in the machine count.

[mousie]

34. 500, 300, a few hundred... what is it?

The news articles I've seen can't even get the number straight there???

Ohio Recount: Bush Still Wins

Kerry Picks Up 500 Votes

POSTED: 1:45 pm EST December 28, 2004
UPDATED: 2:00 pm EST December 28, 2004

TOLEDO, Ohio -- Ohio's presidential recount is complete and the final outcome is unchanged: President George W. Bush won.

Democrat John Kerry did shave a few hundred votes off Bush's victory in the state. An Associated Press count of all 88 counties' unofficial totals shows Bush beating Kerry by 118,457 votes.
--------------------

Ohio Recount: Ohio Recount has ended, Kerry finishes 300 votes closer to Bush

12/28/04 3:11pm EST

[KaliTracy]

5. actually, they did 3% by hand, but they *had* to match the machine

in order to do the rest by machine. SO the 300 extra votes came from the machines.

ALL of the precincts were counted -- by machine (unless some of them didn't use a machine, I'm not sure if that was the case -- a large percentage are punch cards.

[berniew1]

16. Actually its virtually impossible the hand count would match the machine

[KaliTracy]

18. isn't it that they did a stack (3%) in the machine and then the

same stack by hand? And if the 3% matched, then they did the rest by machine?

I think you are right, though, it would be very unlikely that all 88 counties would not have had some anomalies (Well, we know Fairfield county did, but they went against the procedure and kept doing it until it matched).

[merh]

28. Were all of the precincts counted by machine in all 88 counties?

Then the 3% by hand of selected precincts in each county or 3% of all counties?

[KaliTracy]

30. 3% first hand/machine to see if matched - 97% by machine if matched

and all matched...

[merh]

31. I don't mean to be dense, but I am really confused.

If they matched, where did the 300 new votes for Kerry come from? Was the hand count 3% of each county or 3% in toto?

[KaliTracy]

36. this is a report by two observers in Fairfield county

I'm still trying to find the verbage for the procedures...

http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/fairfield.php

[merh]

37. Thank you, I am sure when I read this I will have a better

understanding. :thumbsup:

[KaliTracy]

38. well, at least a better understand of all the problems...

i'll see if i can find that other post

[hedda_foil]

6. Sure, Will.

They recounted 3% by hand (the non-random 3%), then recounted the same 3% by machine ... often multiple times until they came close to the hand count. Often, they had stripped the hanging chads from the ballots before the observers arrived. Without the chads, the hand/machine counts will always be closer, of course. THEN they recounted the rest of the county by machine.... without stripping the hanging chads or otherwise checking the undervotes.

So they have fully (if badly) recounted the whole state by machine, but only 3% of precincts have been hand counted.

[bunny planet]

27. does this include the 93K undervotes on punchcards?

[merh]

32. Where I am confused is ...

Did they count 3% in all precincts in the county by hand or just one precinct in the 1 county out of the 88? Did they do this in all counties?

[thanatonautos]

48. They counted enough full precincts by hand to get 3% of votes.

They did at least that much hand counting in every
county.

Then they either:

(1) Counted the rest of the precincts by machine, if
the machine and hand counts of the 3% matched.

(2) Did a full hand recount if the machine and
hand counts didn't match.

[merh]

54. Was it 3% of the county they counted by hand

or the total of the hand counts done equals 3% of the entire votes "cast"?

[righteous1]

55. 3% of each county n/t

[thanatonautos]

81. 3% of votes cast in each county, although ...

I seem to remember there was some disagreement
as to whether the law said to hand count precincts
amounting to 3% of votes cast or to 3% of registered
voters. So it's possible that not quite the same
thing was done in every county.

[bemis12]

7. Because

there's no indication that these votes were pciked up in the 3% hand count. They may have shown up in the machine counted ones, and likely did for the most part.

The first machine recount in Washington change the margin by 150 votes or so.

[mordarlar]

8. I think it is an important thing to clarify...

it is clear from here that a lot of people mistook that number for the whole state and were disappointed. People need to realize this is not the end of the battle. It brought forward many good things. ;-)

It is important to follow up with the understanding that any counting of counties not "presorted" and "preselected" would offer a better result. Why would anyone presort these ballots unless they were trying to assure a specific result. Take this factor our and you would potentially get a far more favorable result.

[Carolab]

19. EVERYONE KEEPS FORGETTING

WHAT DID TRIAD DO?????

[mordarlar]

20. nobody is forgetting but proving it all in Bush's courts is tough n/t

[vlad]

47. Techie help Triad/Rapp program..

Hi All-
Searching the internet and foxpro sites and happened upon Rapp/Triad Cheryl Bellucci, can anyone who know code.. tell me whta she's trying to do???
http://www.foxite.com/archives/0000012661.htm

Not sounding alarm.. I just have no idea... sometinhg about form 1 and 2.. and ALIAS.
Thanks, Lore

[roseBudd]

56. A few programmers have looked at Cheryl's posts already, the VFP stuff

is probably for the total Voter Information System the co. peddles as the tabulation program is written in COBOL and runs on DOS 6.

In fact the Hocking County computer was a 386.

[me b zola]

51. Bought democracy

:grr: :scared: :grr: :scared:
:nuke:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k8conant]

I think one could extrapolate for effect, but...

be sure to say that's what you're doing. And of course we don't know how many were not counted at first and in the recount.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Yep. And, magically, the 3% that were "randomly" chosen matched...

exactly almost everywhere. Why, you'd think they had "cheat sheets" or something. :tinfoilhat:

[sepia_steel]

26. LOL

"spelling like a freeper"

[Doctor O]

11. The 300 votes were not picked up solely by the

3% Handrecount. And the real total picked up was 734 for Kerry and 449 for Bush.
These votes were picked up both during the handrecount of the 3% AND the machine recount of 100% of the ballots.

So yes you could use math to extrapolate, but in order to be accurate you would have to determine how many came from the hand recount and extrapolate from there.

[Snivi Yllom]

64. almost right

You cant extrapolate just from the initial hand recount. Some of the votes that were picked up came from secondary hand recounts after machine counts in the sample 3% did not match the certified total exactly.

For example, if a 3% sample hand counted 1001 votes but was originally counted election day as 1000 votes, then the remaining 97% of the ballots from that country had to be hand counted by law.

[stellanoir]

13. PM TIA

he's the pro when it comes to crunching numbers.

[KaliTracy]

14. In order to use the machines, the 3% by hand had to match machine total

if it was even one ballot off, they were supposed to do the entire BOE district by hand.

I think though that the 3% were first put into a machine and then hand-counted....

THAT's why it is important to know about the TRIAD "cheat sheets" -- as the man, Michael(?) said something like it was to make it easier for the poll workers during the recount.

ALL of the ballots were put into the machines.

[Zan_of_Texas]

21. well, I wouldn't dwell on the 300 votes.

The "random" counties were preselected.

Triad "adjusted" or "fixed" the machines in their 41 counties in advance of the recount. They said it was to comply with the law, so that only the presidential race would be counted. I say, prove it.

In at least one recount case, the Green observers weren't there -- it was done the day before they came.

Access to poll books frequently was denied.

In at least one instance, an observer reported the card stacks to be recounted were in runs -- all Bush, then all Kerry -- as if .... hmmmm, they had been created especially for the recount.

In one small study by Evan Davis of Columbus, after the election he asked voters in a precinct whether they had attempted to vote, and whether their attempt was successful -- he found 20% had attempted but failed to vote.

Tens of thousands of people were probably denied the opportunity to vote by the planned shortages of machines in black precincts. Those votes cannot be captured by a recount - only by a revote.

Voter Suppression: STEALING VOTES IN OHIO URBAN AREAS

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/972

by Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.
December 3, 2004

Voter Suppression: STEALING VOTES IN COLUMBUS

The Free Press on Election Day posted a disturbing story, later confirmed
by the Columbus Dispatch. The Free Press reported that Franklin County
Board of Elections Director Matt Damschroder deliberately withheld voting
machines from predominantly black Democratic wards in Columbus, and
dispersed some of the machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.
Damschroder is the former Executive Director of the Franklin County
Republican Party. Sources close to the Board of Elections told the Free
Press that Damschroder and Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell met
with President George W. Bush in Columbus on Election Day. The idea was to
discourage turnout in Democratic wards by forcing voters to wait in long
lines at the polling places. Such a strategy would be far more effective
than encouraging turnout in Republican wards. Elections are all about
margins. There are 74 wards in Columbus. George W. Bush won 12 wards, with
a margin of 7.35%. John F. Kerry won 62 wards, with a margin of 37.62%.
Affecting Kerry's turnout would greatly reduce his margin of victory in
Columbus, giving the Republicans a much better chance of overtaking Kerry
given a strong enough showing in suburban and small town Republican
strongholds.

In order to investigate this matter, I obtained from the Franklin County
Board of Elections all the data I needed in order to calculate, ward by
ward, and precinct by precinct: (1) The ratio of registered voters per
voting machine. (2) Percent turnout, calculated as total ballots cast
divided by the number of registered voters. (3) Percent for Kerry,
calculated as votes cast for Kerry divided by votes cast for president. (4)
Margin of victory or defeat for Kerry, calculated as the difference between
the vote totals for Kerry and Bush.

All 36 of the wards at the bottom of the list of voters per voting machine
were won by Kerry, and they include most of his strongholds. In 29 of the
36 wards, Kerry exceeded his city wide share of 62.22% of the vote.
However, these wards suffered a low voter turnout.It is important to
understand what these numbers mean. The polls in Ohio were open from 6:30
A.M. to 7:30 P.M. That is 13 hours, or 780 minutes. If there are 400
registered voters per voting machine, and turnout is 60%, each voter has
less than 3.5 minutes to vote, and that is assuming a steady stream of
voters, with no rushes at certain hours. It also assumes no challenges to
voters at the polls. If there are 550 registered voters per voting machine,
and the turnout is 60%, each voter has 2.4 minutes. All of this amounts to
theft of votes. It has been shown above that the Kerry precincts enjoyed a
voter turnout similar to that of the Bush precincts when supplied with
enough voting machines.

Thus I conclude that the withholding of voting machines from predominantly
Democratic wards in the City of Columbus cost John Kerry upwards of 17,000
votes. A more detailed calculation could be done on a precinct by precinct
basis, but that is not necessary here. The purpose is to illustrate the
magnitude of the conspiracy. Matt Damschroder did not act alone. There are
74 wards and 472 precincts in Columbus, Ohio. It is not possible for one
person to have delivered all the voting machines, and it is unlikely that
nobody else was involved in planning where to deliver them. Anyone who
associated with Mr. Damschroder on or shortly before Election Day should be
investigated for possible complicity.
---------
Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. 4 Fisher Street Canton, New York 13617 (315)
379-0820 [e-mail]

[bunny planet]

22. My understanding is that they haven't even looked at the 93K undervotes

yet and probably don't plan on it. What's up with that? I thought they were going to be reviewed. Or were they not reviewed because the 3% matched up in the 'random' counties they hand counted. Anybody know?

[Doctor O]

23. It looks like some counties did include they over/under votes

I was reading the votecobb observers reports and some specifically mentioned that they reviewed 683 over/under votes and found that in a very few of them the intent of the voter could be determined.

[megalith]

24. The increase in recount ballots

In the 12 counties I managed in SE Ohio, the handcount of 3% of the ballots usually, but not always, matched the official count for that precinct. The statute does does not clearly state that the 3% handcount/machine count number must match the original count for the precinct, and when they did not the BoE's ignored our protests and went to the machine count of the remaining ballots anyway.

Some counties clearly "groomed" the ballots of those preselected precincts that comprised the 3% test. Others did not. And just as clearly the BoE's held their colective breaths as the 3% was handcounted, because it is so easy for a chad to fall free or an optical scanner to misread a stray mark. Some ballots were rather arbitrarily interpreted to make the counts match.

The increase in total ballots in the recount comes mostly <in my opinion> from "found" ballots that were not counted at all the first time, or from undervotes in punchcards where the chad finally broke free from the card and was then clearly read by the card reader OR overvotes in optical counties that were caught, visually inspected and plainly showed the voters intent. Different counties have differing <or no> policy regarding over/under votes during the election night tally.

But as to what votes remain in the system uncounted? Lots and lots. Because we were never able to actually search for and judge under and over votes. Again, only a hand count would do that.

Best

Orren Whiddon
SE Ohio Co-ord Green

[TruthIsAll]

25. How many votes in those precincts vs how many in the state.

What was the makeup of those precincts?
Who decided on those precincts?
Why not recount 100% of the precincts? Why only 3%?
Why should we be satisfied with a partial recount?

Why was Coshocton county the only one which counted all 16,000 votes, which went 57-42 for Bush..until they found that they missed 1,000 votes, of which 51% went for Kerry.

Do you have any idea of what the odds are of that?
If you assume a 2.0% MOE: 1 out of 44 Trillion.

Don't like that MOE? Too small?
OK, try 3.0%: 1 out of 4 Million.

Kerry was scammed every way possible by BushCo, not only in OH, but FL and NM and many others.

Do the Dems even have a clue? Does Kerry?

We will know on Jan.6, won't we?

Will, on Jan.6, with the evidence already out there, if the Dems (and a few Repubs) don't step up, they never will.

If they don't step up, remember this Animal's tune from the sixties?
Oh, right, you wren't around then. I was.

"We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do

We gotta get out of this place
Will, there's a better life
For me and you".

[KaliTracy]

29. why not Hand recount 100% of the precincts that's

the question.
From the Cobb Site: " Coshocton County uses an optical scan ballot. The presidential candidates' position rotates on the ballot from precinct to precinct in order to provide fair position placement. A full hand count of all county precincts was chosen by the BOE for the recount. Optical scan ballots are well suited to hand counting, due to the bold print on the black and white ballot, as well as the bold mark required to indicate a vote. It was the perspective of the nine witnesses that the count proceeded in an equitable manner, with disputes concerning voter intent being resolved in a fair outcome."

They were the only one that did a hand recount of the whole district.

Only a few BOEs actually chose "random" precincts (out of a hat, for example) -- some already had the ballots ready when the observers got there.

ALL of the precincts were counted -- but since the machines jibed with the handcount, they did 97% by machine, 3% by hand.

it wasn't a partial recount -- in the fact that the ballots all went through their various machines -- but it was NOT a valid recount because they really should have all been 100% recounted by hand.

and the 92,000 other votes should have been evaluated too.

[Melissa G]

42. LOL about your song choice TIA

I am old enough to remember after Reagan was elected. We gotta get out of this place was the song that went through my head. Deja Vu in 2000 and yet again since the 3rd of November....
I try to think of 'place' as a mental construct so I don't let them chase me out of the country... but at times Mexico (except for the PRI) was tempting...
Too sad and Too funny BOTH!
:hippie: :cry: :D

[TruthIsAll]

43. Will: Corrections to the odds: Two methods

It was an error when I said that Kerry got 15 more votes than Bush in the new "found" votes. It was just the opposite.

The "uncovered" remaining 1083 votes in the county:
Bush 549 50.69%
Kerry 534 49.30

Probability Method I:
Think of the problem as the equivalent of the probability of Bush deviating from 50.7% in an exit poll of 1083 to 57% in the vote (16,000).

Prob = NORMDIST(0.5069,0.57,.01,TRUE)

For various MOE:

MOE Prob Odds: 1 out of
5.0% 0.00669 149
4.5% 0.00299 334
4.0% 0.00099 1,006
3.5% 0.00021 4,878

3.0% 0.00002 53,342

2.5% 0.00000 2,650,283
2.0% 0.00000 3,183,186,719

As you can see, the MOE assumption has a significantimpact on the probability.

If we assume a 2.0% MOE (like a true exit poll), the odds are ************** 1 in 3.18 Billion ***************


Method II:

Let's assume 57% was the TRUE Bush probability of winning a random vote in the county. Think of it as coin flip, except that the probability of the coin turning up heads is 57%.

Prob = BINOMDIST(N,1000,0.57,TRUE)

Assuming various N, where N is the percentage of new Bush votes, here is a table of odds. The actual value for N was 50.7%, but we want to see the effect of various N on the odds. Obviously, the lower the Bush percent (N) of the 1083 votes, the bigger the odds.

For the actual 50.7%, the odds are 1 in 28,424.

N(%) Prob Odds:1 out of

50 4.96E-06 201,284

50.7 3.51E-05 28,424 <<<< actual case

51 7.68E-05 13,008
52 0.000813 1,229
53 0.005930 169
54 0.029990 33
55 0.106603 9
56 0.271686 4
57 0.512143 2

In either case, a very unlikely event.

[L. Coyote]

46. Some chads fell out, hence more votes. Period.

Nothing mysterious here.

[Chimpanzee]

33. My best guestimate - based on the numbers with extrapolation

means Kerry should have 110-130K more votes than he has. Can anyone confirm my numbers?

On edit : this is based on complete hand counts for each precinct.

[Time for change]

35. My argument is that 10,000 votes won't change the election

So that statement would misleadingly suggest that there is no point in continuing.

The more salient point, I think, is that (if I understand the situation correctly) only a small portion of the 3% were hand counted. Given all of the election irregularities that have been discovered, I would think that there is a large potential to change tens of thousands of additional votes if some of the counties that were machine counted are then hand counted.

Unless, of course, the non-randomness of the choosing of the precincts ensured that the chosen counties matched up pretty well with the official vote count.

[Melissa G]

39. Agree with tfc's previous post

The number is coming from a totally bogus recount. The best thing IMHO is to focus on all the questionable aspects that lead to all this fuzzy math rather than lending any credence to the false numbers.
Thanks for the great writing, Will!

[fshrink]

40. The random selection is not "level 2".

It's plain straight level 1. Numbers, as you perhaps know, do not mean a thing without random selection. It does not mean anything, on any scientific, statistical, level. Hence having 100,000 votes not chosen at random would not even consitute a reliable sample.
More generally, this thing is an endfless quagmire unless significant scrutiny, expert scrutiny, media scrutiny, people's scrutiny, through appropriate instances, is brought about.

[IndyPriest]

44. Can I have your cat if I get the right answer? :-) n/t

[teddyk23]

45. what is a 100% recount?

I think many counties did not count 3% of all of the ballots because they excluded over and under votes from the count. If this was the case, then you could extrapolate that 100% of the votes that were recorded would come up with something like the number you said.

Still, putting all that aside: the election is off by a demonstrable 10,000 votes? Forget the margin, that is a BIG deal.

[thanatonautos]

49. Extrapolation is not completely trivial ... you would have to assume

that the precincts chosen to get 3% of the vote provide
a faithful representation of the voting patterns,
in the whole state.

This may be a bad assumption, especially if the
precincts were chosen non-randomly, and there
is pretty strong evidence that they were not
in fact chosen randomly.

It might be better to take a look specifically
at what precincts were actually chosen, how they
fell with respect to percentage for Kerry and
percentage for Bush, and then form a theory
on how to extrapolate. It may be better, for
example, to take a subset of the precincts that
were hand recounted than to use all of them,
for example.

[Jimdish25]

61. I still haven't heard who picks the precincts....or....

what the chain of custody is for the ballots. If Triad or another private company is involved in the decision, tabulation, machine maintenance, and "grooming" of the ballots, exactly what do we have to indicate that an honest recount actually took place?

At almost every step there are serious questions as to the spontaneity and transparency of this process. Aside from the routine event of small lots of pre-selected vote piles being hand counted and matching a freshly calibrated machine count, I don't understand the significance of this exercise.

In writing this post I find myself questioning whether anything would satisfy me because my level of distrust is so high. But any critical analysis has to lead one to the conclusion that even minimum standards of security have not been met. Again we are supposed to take it on faith that this was done fairly and honestly. I don't buy it.

[righteous1]

62. The 4 BOE officials in each county chose which precincts to count

I am one of the few here that believes the precincts were picked less for nefarious reasons and more to minimise the the hassle and cost of going thru a complete hand recount

[Chi]

68. How would someone decide which precincts would give..

them a better chance of matching hand count, to machine count?

Just curious. I've seen this said before and can't grasp what would make certain precincts more accurate than others.

Thanx in Advance

[me b zola]

50. Okay, don't be overwhelmed by my mathematical skills,

but here it goes:

.number of voters intimidated/suppressed= unknowable
.number of votes unaccounted for in 'glitches'=unknowable
.number of votes never counted=unknowable

results==my statistical analysis is that an unverifiable election is illegitimate. Therefore, we must revote.


I am so sorry, but I am, for two nights in a row, guilty of blogging while under the influence.

[shiina]

52. I read the Ohio laws about a recount and nothing about the 3%

I'm really confused.

It was my understanding that they all did a hand count of 3%, compared it to a machine count, then did a full machine recount if there were no "significant problems".

I've read through all of the Ohio laws about recounts that I can find (http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/procedures_recount_os.html) but I don't see anything there about the 3% thing. Where does this come from?

[megalith]

53. Ohio Recount Statutes

For what its worth try this link

http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/statewide/provisions_recounts.htm

direct to the SoS. Note also that elaction law is spread all over the statute books. I never did have a complete set of everything for my region. Remember also that BoE's interpret the statute and that observers are just that. We cannot do anything other than object, which, I assure you, we did.

And again, the preselection of precincts for the 3% test is critical, because if you know the BoEs will preselect, and you can predict resonably well which precincts they will NOT select, you were just given the means to hack the general election. We have already developed the algorythm to do so.

Does not mean it was hacked, does mean you could.

Best

Orren

[SharonRB]

57. I thought the 300 votes (285, actually)

came from a full machine recount. I thought if the 3% didn't match they were supposed to do a full hand recount (which they didn't do even when there was no match), otherwise they were supposed to do a full machine recount. That's what I thought they did.

[righteous1]

59. JK picked up a net 285 plus 36 additional

do to tabulating errors for a total net gain of +321. Those came primarily from chads being dislodged either in the hand count and machine count of votes. 3% of the county vote total was hand counted then run thru the machines. If the totals matched or were relatively close the additional 97% were machine recounted.

[SharonRB]

60. That matches up with what I thought -- thanks! n/t

[Snivi Yllom]

63. No, they did 100% and picked up 300 votes

Your statement is a bit misleading. To make the extrapolation you made is incorrect.

3% were recounted by hand and 97% were recounted by machine. The rules were as follows:

Under Ohio law, workers must hand-count 3 percent of ballots. If the results match the certified results exactly, all other ballots can be recounted by machine. If the totals are off, all ballots must be counted by hand.

So 100% were recounted and 300 were picked up, not including the provisionals.

[liam97]

65. I don't agree

I don't think it is right to extrapolate at all because of the non-randomness. This pick up of 300 means absolutely nothing

[libertypirate]

66. Since we know the machines are bogus

then they only recounted 3%... "We the people" have yet to count the votes, why can't we, real people count them? Simple answer they won't let us, what are they hiding?

[Snivi Yllom]

67. all of the machines are bogus?

there were all kinds of machines, electronic, punch card, optical scan...

[libertypirate]

69. If we know they are not tamper proof...

[righteous1]

70. The votes that were picked up were from dislodged chads in the

recounting process. As to the machines; How could they be rigged to match the hand count but then magically add whatever % they would have to in the recount tally for Bush to match election night? That's ludicrous on it's face

[libertypirate]

71. Cheat sheet

It's real simple, and on it's face it is fraud.

Dial-a-total

It's real simple, and on it's face it is fraud.

If they are so honest, why not count the votes?
If they are so honest, why not answer the questions?

Why do republicans work so hard to object to votes cast?

All votes should be counted!

[righteous1]

72. Explain your reasoning please.

[libertypirate]

73. If you teach people to cheat...

it is systematic fraud. They don't even have to know what they are doing is wrong, but someone did suggest at some point that "cheat sheets" were ok. So they use them, we all know cheating is wrong yet they have a function which enables them to do it.

If they use a cheat sheet the people's voice is not accurate. The people expect their voice to be counted, if you have an expectation set in good faith and that expectation is not met and it's clear you didn't get what you paid for then it's FRAUD.

[righteous1]

74. These "cheat sheets" were IMHO nothing more than the number

of votes in the precincts to be hand counted. These could not alter the machine count either on election night or during the recount. I believe that they broke the "spirit" of the rule. Criminal? doubtful. Effect the outcome to any significant degree? Extremely unlikely

[libertypirate]

78. You are only trying to answer what cannot be....

Why did they need a cheat sheets?

Why is the company that provides the equipment to count the ballots promoting such a stupid idea? On surprise visits...

Why was it so important to have a machine count ballots, when the machine failed and law says, "Hand Recount"?

Why does Mr. Blackwell feel he is too important to answer questions?

These are simple questions, why doesn't anyone simply answer them?

[many a good man]

83. Who's cheating?

Stop and think for a moment. What's the CIA's motto? Plausible deniability.

Most people are self-defensive about their work. If the totals don't match they may think that they are the one who made the mistake. They won't want to BOTH admit their mistake AND have to count the whole damn thng over again. Everyone just wants to get the hell out of there.

Maybe they are to blame. Maybe not. Maybe the software companies aren't even to blame.

What if the Republican party (or a subset) hacked into the vote counting programs without the software companies even knowing it?

I'm not saying its true or even likely. Its true that there must be some people in on it at crucial points in the chain but there's no way of knowing exactly who.


I've never heard a milkman story with a happy ending....

[megalith]

75. How to Hack Hocking

Sorry, but hacking the general and the recount is not ludicrous at all. Its the whole point.

*If you have access to years of election data at the precinct level.
*If you know how BoEs operate, and know they will preselect precincts.
*If you know they will always select precincts close to 3%; or with evenly matched canidate totals; for the 3% test.

You can then predict which precincts are very unlikely to ever be chosen as part of the 3% sample. Knowing this, your hack focuses on those precints that are very unlikely to be chosen. You leave the precincts more likely to be chosen alone. You leave well run small counties alone.

I might add we already know how to beat the test decks, its not hard.

Your hack script is resident and active for both the general and the recount.

You just hacked punchcards and opticals in Ohio.
Congradulations!

Does not mean they have been hacked, but means they could be. Again, only handcounts or separate <non-BoE> card readers will ever prove if the count is legit or hacked.

[righteous1]

76. If that were the case the BOE officials would have to know which

precincts were "rigged" and which were not, thereby they would pick recount precincts that were "not rigged". That would make the BOE officials complicit in the alleged fraud (half of which are democrats) and not just a few but close to 100 or so if the fraud was spread out over several precincts in several counties which is what has been theorized

[megalith]

77. BoEs picking rigged precincts

Actually it is not at all required that the BoEs be "in" on the possible fraud. The best hacks, frauds and viruses are based on an understanding of human nature. They do not require complicity.

All you need to know in this case:
* BoEs will go to great lengths to handcount the fewest ballots possible.

From what we have seen over Ohio it is then possible to contruct rules that will predict which precincts will not ever be preselected for a 3% test.
Voila!
You just hacked Ohio.

[righteous1]

80. Remotely possible

but I am not buying that one. All it would take is one "miscalculation" and your blown out of the water

[megalith]

82. High stakes poker

Correct.
Hacking a national election or a state is a high stakes poker game. One false move anywhere and you are in risk of being found out. But the election system is setup to cover evedence, rather than reveal it. People act to preserve the status quo, rather than upset it. Any human in an official capacity will CYA first and foremost. With the money, time and expertice, I suspect some folks might take the risk.

And the beauty of machine hacking is that even if your hack is found out, it is likely that there will be no one to blame or charge based just on the physical evidence. Unless someone turns states evidence. Unlikely, that.

opw

[genius]

79. I don't think the issue is the recount but the destruction of ballots

I don't believe for a minute Bush got all those votes. I believe ballots were erased or destroyed and replaced by a ton of Bush ballots. We don't have any idea how many ballots are legitimate but we know that the numbers are wrong. Ohio needs to revote.