Texas Primary Recount Halted By SOS due to 20% discrepancies !

[Amaryllis]

BREAKING: Texas Primary Recount Halted By Secretary of State!
Hart Intercivic Touch-Screen Voting Machines in Tom Green County Fail To Print Ballots for All Votes in Mandated Recount!
REPORT: 'Electronic machines not providing all info', 20% Discrepany Between Recount and Election Night Results!

Just reported by San Angelo (TX) Standard Times is information that the Texas Sec. of State has stepped in and stopped the recount of ballots being printed from the Hart Intercivic "eSlate" Direct Recording Electronic (DRE), touch-screen, voting machines. The stoppage of the recount is due to failure of the voting machines to print all ballots cast in the state primary two weeks ago.

On orders from the Texas Secretary of State’s office, the recount for the Tom Green County Court-at-Law No. 2 race has been suspended midway through its second day.

About 1:30 p.m. today, county Republican Chairman Dennis McKerley stopped the recount after workers found discrepancies of as much as 20 percent between what was counted Monday and what was reported Election Night.

"We’re having some trouble with the electronic equipment," McKerley said...
COMPLETE STORY:
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002583.htm

[babylonsister]

1. I think it's only for Tom Green County, one vote, not the entire state.

"the recount for the Tom Green County Court-at-Law No. 2 race has been suspended midway through its second day."
I wish it was for the whole state!

[bullimiami]

2. is that because its the only one they are trying to audit?

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Thank you for this information

We should note that Brad got it from the San Angelo Standard Times. He wasn't making this up.

Twenty percent can make a difference in most US elections.

To Mr. McKerley I would say: We should all have problems with the elctronic equipment.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. I thought this was a Bradblog exclusive?

eom

[redphish]

4. Sound's like a rehearsal to me.

[Amaryllis]

7. For 2006 election, you mean? I was thinking that too. Reports about

"glitches" are coming out nearly daily now from all over the country. I keep thinking about Guvworld's soundbite "federal elections conducted under conditions that provide inconclusive results and therefore no basis for confidence in the outcome." Only I would say elections PERIOD, not just federal.

[redphish]

8. That's exactly what I meant.

[GuvWurld]

10. Thanks Amaryllis. I have an announcement.

I'm posting sparingly right now as I approach my 1000th post. To coincide with that I am launching the GuvWurld e-book called We Do Not Consent. It is 20 essential posts from the GuvWurld Blog, plus a mind-bending Foreword from LandShark. I've also written two brief new pieces, an intro and epilogue, which bookend the set to seal in the context of advocacy journalism. That's how I describe my writing about my work for social change. I think it is really important that more people consciously choose this approach because it will be the most effective tactic in our collective ability to organize for peaceful revolution. I've got a few ideas for promoting the launch but anybody interested in helping spread this, please PM me.

Coming back to this thread, and addressing Amaryllis's post, I would point out that what she is describing is one example of inherent uncertainty. We have no way to know who the real winner should be. There are many other ways that inherent uncertainty is created. For example, when a person contradicts himself - how do we know when to believe him? Or when some portion of the population believes in scientifically impossible "facts" because the propaganda of the corporate-military-government-media complex is so effective. On how many days ever in history has a skyscraper collapsed from fire? Or when official government data is scrubbed? Or when whistleblowers are gagged? Or when crimes are deliberately covered up requiring complex investigations? Or when important events are blacked out of major media coverage, as if they never happened.

Inherent uncertainty is deliberately created and causes a rift in the common perception of reality. The entire red state/blue state, culture war phenomenon is entirely manufactured in this way. I view it as a Cold Civil War. In order to keep it cold (non-violent) and end the civil war, We The People are going to have to unite against those who are intentionally dividing us with their inherent uncertainty.

Read all about it in Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution.

And start thinking about whether you are willing to allow anyone, from your Mayor to Senator to the next President, to have bestowed upon her the power and authority of an office she did not win in a proper election. Think where you were 11/3/04 and what you felt about whether Bush should be allowed to stay in office. How much more prepared would you rather have been? That situation is coming again, guaranteed. What are we going to do?

[Amaryllis]

11. This phrase right here:

"And start thinking about whether you are willing to allow anyone, from your Mayor to Senator to the next President, to have bestowed upon her the power and authority of an office she did not win in a proper election."
is why I say you need to change your phrasing from "federal elections" to just plain "elections." I don;t know the percentage of votes that aren't counted on trade secret software; I'd guess a couple percent at best, which means we have no basis for confidence in a huge percentage of state and local races as well.

As an auditor friend of mine said, "In God we trust. All others, we audit."

[GuvWurld]

13. Totally agreed.

The Voter Confidence Resolution is a template. Any org or community that wants to adopt it can modify it however they want. I've written extensively about which aspects ought to stay intact, conceptually, in order for the optimal cumulative impact. But otherwise, removing the word federal makes sense to me.

I think as it developed for Arcata there was a sense that we should shy away from suggesting there was any local problem. Things have changed. Over the past few months I've generated quite a bit of media attention talking about the interpreter code making our machines illegal. Here is a radio interview I did yesterday and a front page news story from two weeks ago (.pdf). Perhaps now we could have gotten the resolution through without limiting it to federal elections. But the point is moot here and you can do as you wish where you are. Most recently, progressive Dems in WA have adopted the VCR and made several wording changes (.pdf).

Check out the Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution.

[FogerRox]

5. Rec #6,

[bleever]

6. #7.

:)

[rumpel]

12. k&r.

[Wilms]

14. Story Update

http://www.sanangelostandardtimes.com/sast/news_local/article/0,1897,SAST_4956_4560939,00.html

[mom cat]

15. We need to demand paper ballots everywhere.