Comparing FL 13 to NC 08 Congressional Races

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

I would like to supply information not covered by
the "Scoop" article about the NC 08 and FL 13 contests

Wrong Winner Chosen Twice by Same Voting Machine
Monday, 15 January 2007, 4:42 pm
Article: Michael Collins
Congress Seats Two Clear “Losers”
Wrong Winner Chosen Twice by Same Voting Machine
Examining Florida 13th and North Carolina 8th
Congressional Districts Leaves Little Doubt
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0701/S00173.htm

The scoop article says that the same problems in FL 13 happened
in NC 08 in Mecklenburg County NC.

Some of the information for this article may have come from this website:

The Mysterious Mecklenburg Undervote of 2006
In the November 2, 2006 election, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
had several very close results in both national and state races...
http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06/
The website info was was put together by Vinod Thomas,
an observer for the Larry Kissell campaign. (This is very interesting)

However, an examination of the data at the Mecklenburg County BOE website
shows:

the Mecklenburg County undervote was 4%. 150,952 of 157,252 voters,
or 95.99%, cast a vote for a US Representative. Isn't that normal,
more or less? From the summary http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html ,

Meanwhile - A few things not covered in the article:

1. NC has a different version iVotronic than Sarasota,
and it has a "paper trail".

2. Larry Kissell (D) requested and obtained
a manual recount of the VVPAT in Mecklenburg County.

Larry Kissell's attorneys and observers were there,
and reporters were there.

In spite of what some say, at least some voters do check their paper printout,
regardless of what others say. I know because I hear from people.

The State Board of Elections advised me that -
"instructions were also included (page 13) in the four million voter guides"
(instructions on how to verify the vote on the iVotronic)

3. Carrie Levine, reporter for the Charlotte Observer stated that she observed
the recount and that it did follow protocol and the law completely.

Levine answered my many questions thoroughly, because I had so many doubts.
(I had heard doubts from an observer).
clevine @ charlotteobserver.com

Levine, who has done some good writing on election issues was
adament that the paper was recounted as the law orders.

Levine advised that the "paper trail" was extremely difficult to recount,
because the iVotronic doesn't print a summary, but prints everything, and it
takes longer to find the final selection in a contest. Counters had to go back and
count some ballots several times because they were very very hard to read.

4. The Scoop article says that NC 08 was a stronghold for Larry Kissell,(DEM).

How can the NC 08th be a stronghold for Larry Kissell,
considering that Kissell is a high school social studies
teacher and former textiles worker who never ran for office before,
and who did not get serious backing from the democratic party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kissell

Kissell's opponent, Robin Hayes (R) is also the incumbent,
and has held the seat since 1999.
Before that, Hayes served two terms in the NC House of Reps.
Hayes was the GOP nominee for Governor in 1996. Kissell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hayes

[kster]

1. NC, to my understaniding has Paper Ballots

I shouldn't have to take anyones word on this, all we have to do is COUNT THE PAPER BALLOTS by hand, and we will know for sure.

Anyone Against that?

[emlev]

2. Not paper ballots, paper trails (as I understand it)

They may or may not match the machine count.

[kster]

3. But, there is a way to

have a count to check out that the machines count was correct, one that we don't have to go to court to get permission from a judge, only to be turned down by the Proprietary GAME.

[emlev]

4. Well, I'd say

there's a way to count something other than the machine and compare it to the machine, but I don't trust either count. I don't trust them if they match, but if they don't match it makes a better case that there's a problem! I thought from the Michael Collins piece that they had done that hand count, but I didn't read it carefully and could be wrong.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

5. read the post - the ballots were hand counted

Please read my original post.

North Carolina has a law requiring voter verified paper ballots.

over 4 million voter guides with instructions on our
new voting systems and how to verify the paper "trails" were
mailed out before the election

NC Voters DO verify their paper "trail", I know because
I hear from them.

Larry Kissell asked for and got a manual recount.

5 counties of 10 were recounted, and then Kissell conceded.
Kissell could have continued on. 9 of the 10 counties were
mainly optical scan.

North Carolina does not have the exact same machines as Sarasota
Florida.

North Carolina has version 9 + iVotronic, Sarasota
has a lesser version.

NC has a "paper trail", Sarasota doesn't

NC provides for manual recounts, Sarasota doesn't.

Mecklenburg Counties undervotes were NOT high, Sarasota's were.

Larry Kissell conceded after a manual recount of 5 of
10 counties

Larry Kissell's lawyers were there,

the head of the NAACP was there,

Kissell's observers were there,

and reporters were there.

I spoke with the reporter who was at the recount - by phone.

[philb]

43. I heard that they could not do a full hand recount in Mechlenburg, due to malfunctioning printers

I heard at least 10 % of voters were unable to see who they voted for due to jamming printers.

Was that the case?

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

61. News Reports - Kissell gained 2 votes in manual recount of 5 counties

I would rather that Kissell would have finished the manual
count,but he didn't. We tried to get in touch with the Kissell
campaign before the recount.

The paper trails matched - according to the observers, lawyers, and reporters.

5 counties had a sample recount (which extends if results show anomalies).

4 of the counties were optical scan, and 1, Mecklenburg is touch screen with the VVPAT.

They had machine recounts, then they had manual recounts.

Candidates lawyers, observers, NAACP and reporters were on site.
The reporter, Carrie Levine of the Charlotte Observer said they recounted the paper reels that print the VVPAT on the iVotronic. She told me it was extremely difficult to do, and she watched it closely.
Carrie Levine can be reached at clevine at charlotteobserver.com

Kissell gained 2 votes in the manual recount of 5 counties, then conceded.

RDU News 14 | 11/29/2006 | Kissell Concedes Defeat
Kissell conceded even though only five of the ten counties in the
district had completed the hand recount requested by the Democrat.
The rest were to conduct the hand recounts on Thursday.

Kissell trailed Hayes by just 329 votes out of 121,523 cast following a
machine recount last week.
He gained only two votes Wednesday during the first phase of the hand recount,
during which election officials manually recount votes in a sample of precincts
covering 3 percent of the votes cast in the race.

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=95335&SecID=2

Kissell gained a total of 10 votes from the machine recount in Cabarrus, Hoke, Montgomery, Richmond and Union counties

The Sun News | 11/22/2006 | 8th District race closer in recount
In Hoke, Hayes gained a single vote, while in Union County Kissell lost two ...
in those precincts are discovered, a full manual recount would be conducted. ...
www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16074785.htm

[kster]

6. No, If the hand count matches the machine count,

they are still going to be counting our votes, with secret vote counting machines, and as long as they are using these machines, NO one who is beyond a sixth grade level, will ever trust them or their machines.

Its as simple as that.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

7. story has undervotes for NC wrong

The Scoop story has Mecklenburg's undervote in double-digits,
maybe the author didnt realize that all county absentee voters
are lumped together in the turnout figures for each of the three CDs.

[philb]

42. The undervotes in Mechlenburg were about 6300 but there wer also undervotes

in other counties, and a lot of machine problems reported in Mechlenburg. Seems there is likely no way to know who the
majority of voters prefered.

here are some of the reports from Mechlenburg, I've forgotten what other counties were involved.

4867 Registration Problem Polling Place Problem Mecklenburg North Carolina St. John Baptist Church No Precinct 2 at St. John Baptist Church touch pad screen problem when using the voting machine, there were three pages worth of selections. When he clicked next at the bottom of the first page, it erased check mark for the last candidate. Selected candidate again, then clicked next. Same thing happened on the second page. Finally, completed voting and received confirmation of all of his selections. He is only 90% confident that his votes were counted correctly, and that is a disappointment.



Machine Problems, Long Lines, Late Opening, Disorganized, Some PP poorly marked,

7531 Polling Place Problem Mecklenburg North Carolina No machine problems, 3 machines were down, long lines.

7542 Polling Place Problem Mecklenburg North Carolina Joseph W. Grier Academy No Machine: new computerized machines, staff not trained for using machines, bond page on ballot did not come up.


4871 Voter Intimidation Problem Polling Place Problem Mecklenburg North Carolina Beatty's Ford Road . Machines malfunctioning when voting after placing vote (electronic), the machine would CHANGE the vote. This happened 3 times. She called out and said "What's wrong with this machine" at which several OTHER voters noticed that their votes had been changed/recorded incorrectly. Voter intimidation privacy-polling staff stood 1-1.5 ft behind the voter and behind all voters too

(some of the machine problems were on bond issues, but not clear which of the races had problems)

[OnTheOtherHand]

45. yes, 6300 undervotes for all 3 CDs in Mecklenburg

In a race as close as Kissell-Hayes, I would have to agree that there is no way to know for sure whom the majority of voters preferred. I can say that it's really unlikely that excess undervotes in Meck swung the outcome: not enough of them (although it's arithmetically possible). Throw in some other variables, who knows?

[philb]

48. what about the disappearing votes and printers that wouldn't print

How much info have people heard about the extent of the disappearing votes people were seeing
and which races seemed to be affected by those problems?

and did the malfunctioning printers only prevent the voters from seeing if their vote was correctly compiled,
but not affecting the recount?

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. good questions that I don't have answers to

I myself haven't heard any stories of people reporting disappearing Kissell votes, but I'm far from Mecklenburg County.

If some printers malfunctioned outright, I assume those precincts wouldn't be included in the hand recount, which was a 3% hand recount. As I understand the system, they do a 3% hand recount, and if the discrepancies are large enough to put the outcome in doubt, they do 100%. But take this as my thinking out loud -- again, I'm far from Meck.

[Bill Bored]

52. Printers don't prove votes were correctly compiled. Only audits do. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

53. not disappearing votes, but wrong ballots in split districts

We didn't have reports of vote changing.

We had a polling place that served split districts, and the
poll workers gave 446 voters the wrong ballot.

wrongly voted in razor-thin Black race
Charlotte Observer, NC - Nov 15, 2006

Poll workers blamed; speaker stands to gain

Hundreds of voters who don't live in N.C. House Speaker Jim Black's district improperly cast ballots in the tight race, Mecklenburg election officials said Tuesday.

The news throws the already too-close-to-call race -- and the future of one of the state's most prominent politicians -- into more doubt.

Election workers at a southeast Charlotte precinct that straddles two districts gave the wrong ballots to 446 voters, wrongly allowing them to vote in the Jim Black-Hal Jordan race.

Election officials said there's no way to separate the 105 votes correctly cast Nov. 7 at McClintock Middle School from the improperly cast ballots, and the tainted results could force a new election.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16014781.htm

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

47. thanks, linkie? and comment

Hey, philb, thank you for the info,
I requested a trouble report from Mecklenburg County's Election
Director, Michael Dickerson.

He, of course is just about the only one of the 100
election directors who won't respond to any of my
emails. Period. Been that way for 3 years now.

Question: Can you provide a link to the items reported?

Comment: These problems are mild for Mecklenburg County.
This is our largest county, slightly over 500,000 registered voters,
and its a 100% DRE county.

This has been our black hole, the county with little or no activist
presence, and also lots of transients.

Mecklenburg deployed at least 1,000 touchscreens for the Nov
election, and the problems you reported are mild compared to this
county's history, believe me.

You should have seen 2004, when they deployed 1,400 Microvote 464s,
and 100 Microvotes Infinities (early voting, surely not enough).

Big screwup, not sure how many votes really counted. 4,000 more
votes than voters, machine count and internal paper count
(has printer inside machine) did not match.

Bottom line - with nearly 200 precincts, and just 1,000 machines this time,
you can be sure of problems. These are mild for such a large county.

I didnt say acceptable, I said compared to the norm for Mecklenburg, mild.

If you know some folks in Mecklenburg that would like to improve this county,
and can organize more folks in the county, pm me.

DREs just really really suck.

If he had optical scans, he would need about 200 optical scanners and
200 automarks. Thats alot less machines, real paper ballots, and
easier work for poll workers.

Yikes, sorry, got on a rant!

[Bill Bored]

50. Maybe you should notify Al The Cat so he can print a correction. nt

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

59. if you could advise

If I knew how to get in touch with Alt the Cat,
I could ask the person who talked to Collins (before the article)
to contact Alt.
This person went over the vote data with Collins and he knew he was running with wrong info.

[Kelvin Mace]

62. I'll look tomorrow

at the office. I think I have his email address.

[Ellipsis]

64. send him a pm

althecat

[kster]

8. The Judge say's, that "We can't look in the machines that counted our vote

FL or NC, whatever, You and/or our kids in the future, have to do A royal bow to a machine, according to the Judge, because whether the machine was right or wrong we have to (no other choice) believe what the machine vote count total is.

ALL HAIL TO THE CORPORATE VOTE COUNTING MACHINES!!

ALL HAIL TO THE CORPORATE VOTE COUNTING MACHINES!!

[Kelvin Mace]

92. Oh, grow up

What the judge said in FL has no affect on NC. Since the candidate conceded and he didn't go to court, the issue is moot.

We can't help people who don't wish our help. We offered, but were told "That's OK, we have the national Dem lawyers, and they are telling us what to do. We don't need your help."

As to FL-13, well I'll have comments on that later.

[Bill Bored]

9. One more difference between FL and NC

Straight party voting is perfectly legal in NC, except for President. And it's totally illegal in Florida.

So, has anyone checked the ballot definition programming to see if Kissell was actually included in the Dem Straight Party definitions?

Did voters report problems casting votes for Kissell as occurred in FL CD-13?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks for all the hard work on the OP though!

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

10. no and no

No ballot definition files hve not been reviewed.

and

No, voters did not complain of problems casting votes for Kissell.

The one thing that did happen in the 08 was some poll workers
gave out the wrong ballots in a split precinct.
This affected one split precinct, and it affected votes for
the NC House of Representatives.

But that could happen in early voting, (to a much larger extent)
but no one reported trouble voting for Kissell.

[unc70]

11. Thanks for the update; I knew you wanted to hear from the witnesses.

I responded in another thread on this topic earlier and was severely attacked, along with NC and the NC ER activists. I still don't understand what set the other poster off.

I had responded that the new NC election law is stronger than that of FL and I believe it might be barely enough to allow detection of election fraud. I also said that I thought it was the best we could do with the legislature and environment we had.

Do you know if anyone has actually examined the sourcecode et al as provided by the new law?

[autorank]

25. unc70 - Just to clarify, we had a positive exchange on that other thread.

I complimented you on the state law and pointed out that nobody can anticipate everything, etc. etc. and then we had a friendly email exchange. I didn't want people to get the impression that I had attacked you.

From the exchange: http://tinyurl.com/wva83

"NOW, here's what the great NC activists can think about. Maybe two things (and it's easier for me to give advice than it is to act, I can assure you ;):"

The "severe attack" I think you're reference looked more like an intense discussion, but that's all Ianthe eye of the participant and beholder.

Cheers and good luck on all of your efforts.

[unc70]

30. Sorry autorank, I meant my reply to be to willyourvotebecounted, not your

I concur with your assessment that you and I had a positive exchange in the other thread and did not mean to imply otherwise. I don't know why an occasional reply gets attached to the OP although it was to a later post that verified when posting.

WRT the other ongoing exchange, it continues with ever increasing intensity in both posts and PM. I am baffled about what triggered the increased intensity.

And best wishes on your efforts, too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. oh, good heavens

I abandoned that thread, so I missed the post where you were asked, "My God!? Did you shoot down your own associates."

Yikes.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

33. Hilarious - Autorank not allowing my posts - to correct his "story"

:rofl:

When writing "articles" with misleading information,

do - not - allow - comments - by those who could correct the inaccurate
information!

I corrected Collins story over in "General", and he since has
blocked me.

Instead of retracting misleading information
just try to prevent anyone from pointing out how incorrect and
misleading the information is.

Wouldn't want people to feel duped!

Hey this new blocking eature is working out well
to prevent direct rebuttal of misleading information!!!!

and to increase the number of threads needed

in order to rebutt incorrect information!

Double the threads!

Double the confusion!

[Ellipsis]

34. Post it in this thread or start a new thread.

People will read your words regardless.

:patriot:

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. maybe it's time to remind people why the story is so bad

autorank's Scoop story contains claims like this:

...the North Carolina 8th results, reviewed in the context of the election contest analysis of Florida’s 13th, makes it abundantly clear that the loser, Kissell, should have won in almost any scenario other than voting machine malfunction.

Unfortunately, no matter what context the results are reviewed in, they don't support that claim. (Kissell might have won in some alternative scenario.)

In both districts, the iVotronic touch screen voting machines produced undervote rates at or above 15%....

No, they didn't. As you've said, the undervote rate in NC-08 was about 4%. (Or, if someone prefers, we don't know what the undervote rate really was.)

Since the undervote rates in these distant and disparate counties were almost the same, the data on Kissell supports Jennings claims.

Jennings doesn't need that "help" -- the fact is, the undervote rates aren't almost the same.

The graph on the left shows 3,199 undervotes (16.6%) in Democrat Kissell’s stronghold in Mecklenburg....

Yes, it does, but it is wrong. Anyone willing actually to look at the data can confirm that this figure depends upon improperly allocating all absentee/early votes to congressional district 8.

Now, autorank's response to this is...

(1) "that's a reason to question everything." Except autorank's article, apparently -- at least, in his mind. Bad turnout figures may or may not be a reason to "question everything," but they don't support autorank's claims about undervotes in NC-08.

(2) "I’m happy and justified to use their published figures until they open the whole operation up for a forensic examination... of everything. Otherwise, their race by race figures for Turnout stand and the undrevote/difference comes from the chart above." Actually, autorank is cherry-picking the published figures. As you've pointed out, we have precinct-by-precinct returns that document a much lower undervote rate than autorank's calculation. And we can see why the figure in autorank's calculation is wrong.

(3) "The Board can’t give with the hand of individual reporting showing major differences between vote totals and turnout and take away with the other of cryptic reconciliation that makes no sense.... If the county changes it’s reporting and numbers on their official report, they I’ll have to write a different article “County Changes Results in NC 8th. Which Numbers Can We Believe? ." In other words, autorank is determined to find the turnout figures inexplicable, even if they have been explained. Oh-kay. (I'm thinking maybe he needs to practice this other-hand business, but maybe that's just me.)

(4) "And, of course, these are touch screens. For all anybody knows, they’re off in all different directions and there’s no way for us to tell." This is what it always seems to come down to. 'Since we can't trust the machines, we're entitled to claim whatever we damn well please, and dare Them to prove we're wrong.' Maybe it's a political master stroke. Or maybe it makes us look foolish and/or unprincipled. Maybe both. It certainly seems like a gamble.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. self-nitpick: strike "early" from that

Or change it to "absentee/curbside/provisional."

The mail-in absentee, curbside, and provisional ballots were actually counted in each of the CD turnout figures, so if you add up the CD turnout figures, they are triple-counted. Also, three precincts are divided between two CDs, so they are double-counted. All that accounts for the 7,031-vote difference between the listed total turnout and what you get if you add the three CD totals together.

But the early votes are allocated to precincts, so they aren't double-counted.

[troubleinwinter]

37. Welcome to the Club

of 'Not Allowed To Question Or Have Any Discussion Or Disagreement With The Divine autorank'. We serve cookies and punch on Thursdays.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. Thursdays? why that's -- that's -- TOMORROW!

Yay! OK if I smuggle in a flask of something to spike my punch with?

Oops, I retract that question. Just joking, of course. ;)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

46. those whose name he won't speak of

For the next meeting of the Autorank-Out-Casts,
I think I shall have one of these :beer:

How many are there in the ranks of un-Autorank-ed?

I haven't banned anyone, its just no fun.

I will even try to conjure up polite answers to some
of the less circular questions posed to my
un-autoranked messages.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. hey, got another one (my response to #36)

galloglas, I did not "claim" that your question was "disingenuous." But it certainly was loaded. People's reactions to loaded questions, as to loaded guns, often depend on which end they are at.

Do you actually think that the word "principles" precludes attention to "consequences" because principles are "a priori" while consequences are "post priori"? That reasoning makes little sense even as a semantic quibble, because the principle of attending to consequences does precede the consequences.

There are, of course, ethical systems that reject attention to consequences. They scare me. So, I repeat: Some of us take it as a point of principle that what actually happens, actually matters.

You are free to insist on some definition of "fracture," just as you can insist on some definition of "principles" or "manual" or "audit" or any other word. Good luck with that. I'm sorry if you feel betrayed, or whatever, by "former HCPB stalwarts."

(edit to correct formatting)

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, I admit to totally ignoring HR 6200. Is that meant to be an example of a jurisdiction that is considering adopting HCPB? It doesn't seem like one to me, because (1) it only got 20 cosponsors in the House, which would set the bar for "consideration" pretty darn low, and (2) it would only apply to presidential elections anyway -- hardly a quibble for those of us who have paid any attention whatsoever to the arguments against HCPB.

I have no animus against HR 6200; I just don't think it's relevant to the discussion.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. Sadly, some folks

can't handle disagreement, especially when it comes from responsible adults who have actually worked on the issue.

[galloglas]

28. The other "set off" poster replies

While I wait for your reply to the PM you requested from me, I will answer what the "other poster" thinks.

As I explained to you in my PM, my reply on the other thread was not an "attack". Nor was it aimed at NC and NC ER activists.

It was aimed at a "technique" being employed, currently, at the national level. That of "cutting ties" or "cutting loose from" other segments of the ER movement (specifically HCPBers), in order to allow less adamant segments (those tolerant of OpScans and DREs with VVPAT) to "gain a seat at the table".

Why should this have to happen?

It is only since the surprising ascendance of the Dems, in Nov. 2006, that this ERD board has fractured between HCPBers and those who are machine tolerant.

Why would that occur? Possibly because the ER movement, in general, has stayed on the heels of the Powers that Be that try to dictate the outcomes of the Biennial Kubuki Dance we have every other November?

And that the PtB, feeling they have to accommodate the Reformers, make sure they have to deal only with the "tolerant" portion of the Reformers, in the belief that

1) It still allows the voting machine makers in the game, for at least one more election cycle, and,

2) The machine tolerant reformers may be easier to manipulate, and,

3) With any luck, "all of this will blow over", and the reformers will finally go away, and, if the "machine tolerant" reformers come back again,

4) They can be told, "Look. We helped you! We compromised. Give things a chance to work!".

And if that doesn't quell dissent from "machine tolerants", then they can be told

5) "Look! This is as good as it gets. No more! Besides, you can't go back to the HCPBs, you people were the ones who worked with us on this and gave the Ok to it. You're part of the problem now."


So, I ask all of you machine tolerant people this one question. Why have we been able to coexist, until it is time for laws (and sausages) to be made, but now find ourselves in debate? And I can't believe it is because any of you (speak up now, if you actually do exist) believes that the proper HCPB system would not be a better, more transparent, more honest, system of voting.

If there are no dissenters to the above statement, I'll offer my reason (and the legislators, politicos, and lobbyists already know this).

The legislators are willing to negotiate with "machine tolerant" ER people (and almost force them to accept grants, funding, etc., if possible) because, by definition, they are trying to what "is practical" or "what can be done", instead of what they think is "perfect" or "right".

The HCPBers Now!, and others (there are others. Those who would, for instance, mandate machines designed, owned, and controlled by the state) are fighting on principle, not practicality.

We my find that difference tiny, if we are all true ER reformers. After all, we have co-existed here a long time. But to the legislators who must be curried, it is totally different.

So, I'll offer an analogy that anyone past age 20 should understand.

It is like when one wishes to be invited to a party, or club, or function (whatever), there is someone who must do the inviting (the PtB).

And, in the case of ER people, the "machine tolerant" segment have finally been asked to go the The Big Dance by the PtB, but, with one proviso. "Yeah, you can come to the dance. But don't let your ugly sister (brother) come along. OK?".


Get it? To a legislator, principles="ugly".

So, who are your friends ?? Those who have fought beside you, share your values (if not tactical decisions) or those who will give you what you want today (bearing in mind that your ugly sibling doesn't give a damn about a leftover corsage you may proffer, after The Big Dance)??

[OnTheOtherHand]

32. you ask all of us...

OK, I guess that's an invitation to a brief response.

I reject the premise that the list "fractured" between HCPB advocates and the "machine tolerant" after the election. I don't think the list has "fractured" along those lines, but I think that to the extent that certain HCPB advocates have opposed HR 550, they have encountered pushback from people (including some HCPB advocates) who supported HR 550.

Supporting HCPB is harmless, if presently inconsequential -- I'm not aware that any jurisdiction outside New Hampshire is considering adopting HCPB, and not sure that any jurisdiction in New Hampshire is. That could change in the future. Opposing HR 550 (or its successor) is not necessarily inconsequential or harmless, so of course it generates more conflict.

And I can't believe it is because any of you (speak up now, if you actually do exist) believes that the proper HCPB system would not be a better, more transparent, more honest, system of voting.

That's a poorly (or excellently, depending on your purposes) worded question. Better than what? Actually, several people on the board have argued that HCPB is problematic because of the time and effort required to count complex ballots, with the attendant logistical and security concerns. It's rather spooky that you can wave aside all previous discussion with a sweeping assertion that surely everyone would support "the proper" HCPB system, whatever that might be.

Your dichotomy between principle and practicality is also quite muddled. Some of us take it as a point of principle that what actually happens, actually matters. If you have trouble perceiving that as a "principle" at all, then perhaps you don't share our values.

[galloglas]

36. You have *totally* ignored HR 6200

OTOH,

Your pronouncements strike me as disingenuous, as much so as you claim mine ("That's a poorly (or excellently, depending on your purposes) worded question. Better than what?") to be.

Your dichotomy between principle and practicality is also quite muddled. Some of us take it as a point of principle that what actually happens, actually matters. If you have trouble perceiving that as a "principle" at all, then perhaps you don't share our values.

Principles (root "principi") are things held a priori, while "what actually happens, actually matters" refers to "consequences", or something post priori.

I reject the premise that the list "fractured" between HCPB advocates and the "machine tolerant" after the election. I don't think the list has "fractured" along those lines, but I think that to the extent that certain HCPB advocates have opposed HR 550, they have encountered pushback from people (including some HCPB advocates) who supported HR 550.

You can reject what you wish. It won't change anything. If harm is done with HR 550, it would be because former HCPB stalwarts have decided to use HR 550 as a basis for change without either disavowing HCPBs or stating clearly that a proper (read: the best it can be made) HCPB System was the end result they wished to see.

When something fractures, it is due to something moving. Those for HCPBs Now! have not changed their position. Other parties have. Consequently, the movement, consequently, the fracture.

That said, though you have left another post for me, I will have to beg off further exchanges with you and put you on ignore, and join BeFree.

I have the fortitude to debate you, OTOH, I just don't have the time. I have an Electoral Reform matter I need to attend to.

[Kelvin Mace]

65. Uh, no

It is only since the surprising ascendance of the Dems, in Nov. 2006, that this ERD board has fractured between HCPBers and those who are machine tolerant.

This has been an ongoing argument for about the last year. We have debated the logistics and realities of HCPB NUMEROUS times. I personally have challenged HCPB supporters to show me ONE example of HCPB being used in a complex race in a large voting jurisdiction with results provided in a reasonable amount of time (to better reflect the realities of the voting districts in the US) and in every instance they have failed.

I, Will-Your-Vote, and a number of others have actually WORKED on real legislation to combat BBV, and we certainly haven't been referred to as "reasonable" by the opposition (and we have the clippings to prove it).

I hate to rain on people's fantasy life, but HCPB are a non-starter in the majority of the US. We have our foot in the door with mandatory VVPB, code disclosure requirements, post-election hand-counted audits, criminal penalties for screwing with the code. It's a start, not the end of the process.

I find your characterization of the work I and others have done rather offensive.

[troubleinwinter]

72. No, I am not so sure

that we have "We have debated the logistics and realities of HCPB NUMEROUS times".

While there has been a lot of excellent and educational information provided by several knowledgeable people (most notably febble), there has been a complete avoidance of all of my MANY questions by the "ALL HCPB" folks.

In my book, NO "information about logistics" has been offered by the AHCPB advocates at all, just rants and cheers. I don't oppose the idea, but I cannot get any sensible answers to my concerns about how it could work here.

Here is a typical question that was utterly avoided:

(a helpful DUer provided a link in response to my question about how many workers might be required for HCPB in this country with 50+ ballot issues: http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1923 )

Wow. Interesting. The article seems to answer one of my questions. It calls for 4,6 or 8 'counters', plus 4, 6 or 8 'observers, and 10 'watchers'. If we use the average of 6 counters and observers, each polling place will need 22 people for the counting, plus the person videoing and broadcasting it.

We have 200,000 polling places in this country, so we will need 200,000 videographers, as "The videotaping will be broadcast over closed-circuit TV and streamed over the Internet while the counting is happening." Each polling place will need a closed circuit TV system and internet access to run many thousands of counts simultaneously.

So while we have previously needed 2,000,000 poll workers and have been running 500,000 (25%) short, we now need an additional 4,600,000 people for the counts. We had been managing to get around 1,500,000, but we would now need 6,600,000.

Most poll workers are paid, but we still lack the needed pollworkers. Are the count people to be paid or volunteers? If we have been falling short with paid workers, how will we quadruple the number of people? Will it be compulsory to serve? Or do you know that enough workers can be recruited?

I do not see that we have "debated the logistics and realities of HCPB". These issues have been largely avoided by the HCPB proponents, while accusing people with questions as being "part of the GAME", having something against "the children", being "pro-machine" companies, and other revolting smears.

Everything else you said is right-on in my book.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. Well, by debated

I mean, we defined the problem, presented our facts, gave examples, did the math, and waited for a response. The response was (mostly) to ignore the problem, ignore the math, give inappropriate examples, demand answers to the same questions over and over again, and insinuate that people who didn't support HCPB RIGHT THIS FREAKIN' MINUTE, were members of the O'Dell family or Karl Rove's dirty tricks squad.

[galloglas]

77. Your answer

now that I know your post was to me, rather than "ignore".

I hate to rain on people's fantasy life, but HCPB are a non-starter in the majority of the US.

HCPBs are non-starters? Good to know. We test it at 70%+ approval, with the public. How long ago was the support for the Iraqi war over 50% (and now is at 11%)

I find your characterization of the work I and others have done rather offensive.

And I find your remark offensive. I only asked questions. Very pointed questions, based on information available, but questions none the less.

But, if the non-answered questions were on the mark, and the shoe fits, then wear it. And, if you wear it, I find "the work I and others have done" somewhat compromising to the entire effort.

Spell out your "dream goal" of Electoral Reform, the finished product, and I'll comment on it--- if you will refrain from becoming snarky.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. naw, that can't be right

I have been asking if the folks against HCPB for an argument as to why it cannot be done. 1) Are Americans too stupid?, or 2) Can't we count that high? And, I have never had a taker.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=464889&mesg_id=464951

I was going to tell galloglas that I thought that would come as a surprise to you, but I couldn't. Apparently he is busy attending to an Electoral Reform matter. Look forward to big news from Missouri, I guess.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. Apparently, galloglas

is not interested in actual debate, as he has now banned me from responding, then throws out comments knowing they won't be rebutted.

How convenient.

Also, he apparently doesn't get the reference to "Panglossian best of all possible worlds". Classical education is sadly neglected in today's curricula.

It would seem that someone is also is humor impaired. The only possible reason I can see for having my post deleted was that I addressed his nonsense "Oh, caucasian please..."

Let me guess, someone decided it was "racist". It is humor, and not the least bit racist. It is a play on the admonishment "Oh, negro please..." an expression of exasperation used by African-Americans to other African-Americans to show that they believe the speaker is engaging in exaggeration, histrionics, or other justifications.

Apparently, one Caucasian calling another Caucasian a "Caucasian", is unacceptable.

When did that word become offensive?

Edited to add:

He also demands I tell him who "we" are, once again refusing to do research of any kind. If nothing else, I asked first.

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. well, I will say this: it sucks being a mod

I don't know why your post was deleted, but hey, posts are like potato chips.

galloglas seems to think he is interested in actual debate. The problem is, gg can't believe that anyone actually disagrees (gg wrote as much*), so of course when anyone states grounds of disagreement, gg interprets it as deviousness.

* Quoting #26: "And I can't believe it is because any of you (speak up now, if you actually do exist) believes that the proper HCPB system would not be a better, more transparent, more honest, system of voting." The "proper" HCPB system? Sort of a pig in a poke.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

100. you hit the nail on the head

I find it futile to respond to inquiries that are
"peppered" with name calling and insults.

Its even dumber to respond to the same questions
over and over. Its insanity.

There are those who feel that "platitudes" are the solution,
then there are those who feel that "facts" and "figures"
and research are part of the solution.

There's no convincing one to change into the other.

Sometimes it seems that the entire purpose is
to distract someone from more important work.

No DU members were blocked during the posting of this message

[Kelvin Mace]

101. BRILLIANT!!!!

No DU members were blocked during the posting of this message

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:yourock:

I will add this to my posts!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. that's the cycle

"Sometimes it seems that the entire purpose is to distract someone from more important work."

That's exactly what people think about me -- and I'm sure they really do. Same planet, different worlds. There seems to be no communicating across the fact/"principle" divide.

[Kurovski]

104. Was it the post where another DUer was insulted

with a Shakespearean quote being used as the delivery system? it seems to have disappeared from this thread.

A "Classical education" is a terrible thing to waste.

[Kelvin Mace]

105. Actually, it was Voltaire

though the post may have been deleted because I had said "Oh, Caucasian please..." This may have offended GG to the extent that he dropped a dime on me.

For the record, I am a Caucasian, blindly so (Irish American). I would assume someone using the flag of Ireland would also be Caucasian.

[Kurovski]

107. The Shakespeare must have been downthread.

The "sound and fury" quote.

Maybe it's still here. :shrug:

[Kelvin Mace]

108. Oh, yes, that WAS

Shakespeare. Macbeth, my favorite play.

Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends.

Nose tweak.

[galloglas]

94. These dice

I tell you we've tested it at 70% plus (this was not for publication.. it was internal) and was an FYI. To say what we know.

Then you dog me for it? And, THEN, you go ahead and make this statement without providing sources, data, etc. So who is your we? The NC poster who claims to be part of your effort and 100% HCPB, or your "machine-head" approach?

Also, who is this "we" you speak of, as in "We test it at 70%+ approval..."

Sorry, we've done our homework. We are not talking about how things should work in a perfect environment, we are talking about how they work in the very messy, very real world. We have debated this issue thoroughly.

BTW, what is Joyce McCloy's "dream solution"? After complaining all over the board about "no answers from autorank", she has never answered my question. So why don't you tell me?

I told you I would respond to you. But I didn't know you would betray yourself not as snarky, but as a racist. See below:

ME:
Spell out your "dream goal" of Electoral Reform, the finished product, and I'll comment on it--- if you will refrain from becoming snarky.

YOU:
Oh, caucasian, please....

And also YOU:

Worse, we have to deal with people who refuse to do research, and spend their time abusing us for not solving the problem their way, which only requires we suspend reality and live in a Panglossian best of all possible worlds.

And Panglossian is non-Caucasian?

Sorry, Kelvin, you are rude, abrasive, non-constructive, IMHO. I prefer not to deal with people like you. Consequently, I will hit the "Ignore" button for you.

But I assume that's what you wanted, given your statement, below:

I am not losing sleep because I have been deprived of your comments on my "dream goal".

[althecat]

97. great and succinct post....

Cheers

P.S. I am one of the ugly sisters who did not get an invite.

[galloglas]

109. Thanks, al

So am I.

I guess we'll just have to stay home and bake brownies, and watch the rest of them on C-Span!

[OnTheOtherHand]

12. let me say about the ACTUAL undervote rate

Super, informative post, but may I elaborate on a few points?

I've never tried to figure "normal" House undervote rates, because they could vary a lot depending on the context -- but I think that Vinod Thomas (on the pages that you linked to) carefully and correctly made the case that the undervote rate of a bit over 4% in the NC-08 portion of Mecklenburg County was high for an off-year race. A "normal" figure would be closer to 2%. I can go along with your "normal, more or less" in the context of a comparison with FL-13 -- the Meck figures don't scream disaster in the way that the Sarasota figures do. But I do think there were excess undervotes, perhaps 300 or so in the NC-08 race.

One possible reason that I haven't seen mentioned has to do with the ballot layout. In Meck, the House races appeared at the bottom of the first column, which was headed, "FOR STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING." So, voters who did not intend to vote a straight-party ticket may have skipped to the second column. If they weren't consciously looking for the House race(s), some may never have seen it.

There's one other respect in which I have to defend the Scoop article -- even though its factual premise isn't actually factual, so ultimately one can't say much good about it. It doesn't actually say that NC-08 was a Kissell stronghold; it refers to "Kissell's stronghold in Mecklenburg." Given that Kissell did win the Meck portion of NC-08 by better than 2 to 1, I can't object to that. The problem is that the article wildly overstates the number of undervotes.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. thanks, expert help always good

Thanks for the clarification. Expert help is always appreciated.

Considering NC's straight ticket voting law, I am surprised the
undervote isn't higher than the 4.11%.

When I participated in the post election audit in May and November
in my county, it was clear that folks did not understand the straight ticket
voting law.

Some folks would mark straight ticket and then still vote for some offices
that were covered by straight ticket. Some did cross overs and didn't follow
the cross over rules. Some left out the judicial contests. Etc.


Mecklenburg BOE website:

An examination of the precinct data shows that the "ballots cast" data for
vote-by-mail are reported for the county, not for each district separately.
So are the curbside ballots cast and provisional ballots cast. So, the
ballots cast for district 8 wrongly include the ballots cast for all
Congressional districts, not just for district 8. Thus the apparent high
undervote.

However, when you examine the data properly, the undervote rate in District
8 was 4.11% -- high, but not the exhorbitant rate shown on the county site
above.
Undervote in District 9 was 3.75%,
District 12 was 3.96%.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. stone soup

The Scoop writer didn't have to be more expert; he had to be more careful. I know there are a bunch of folks from NC who would have been happy to help him get the facts right.

Like you, I'm also surprised that the undervotes weren't higher. Actually, a close look at the county commissioner and judicial figures (maybe others, too) might turn up more excess undervotes.

I found the ballot instructions confusing, and I had a pretty good idea what they would say. Heaven help anyone who was actually trying to figure it out.

FOR STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTER
a. To vote for all candidates of one party (a straight party ticket), touch the box to the left of the party.

b. You may vote a split ticket by not selecting the box next to the party, but by selecting the box next to the name of each candidate for whom you wish to vote.

c. You may also vote a split ticket by selecting the box next to the party and then selecting the box next to the name of any candidate you choose of a different party.

d. In any multi-seat race where party is selected and you vote for candidates of another party, you must also select the box next to the name of any candidate you choose of the party for which you selected to assure your vote will count.

e. If you wish to write in a candidate, where permitted, select the box next to the words "Write-In" and type the candidate's name on the line using the keyboard that will be displayed. Write-in votes are authorized only in certain races.

f. A Straight Party vote does not vote Non-Partisan Offices or other issues.

YOU MAY VOTE FOR ONE (1) PARTY

http://www.meckboe.org/Pages/SampleBallots/2006General/71.pdf

Oh-kay. And after all that, they put the Congressional race(s) at the bottom of that column. Amazing.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

18. the really frustrating part

We approached the Kissell campaign before the recount was
conducted, hoping that they would consider advice from
computer scientists on what to look for.

But the reply was that the Democratic Party had sent
the best lawyers possible to the NC 08.

Emails, phone calls to the Kissell Campaign
and to the State Dem Chair were to no avail.

SO, only after the recount, and after Kissell concedes
did we even hear anything at all.

HAD the Kissell campaign responded, there were
some folks available to examine the vote data that the Kissell
campaign would be privy to, which wasn't publicly available.

We might have identified possible trouble spots, or have been
of some help. Its a shame to only get information from the campaign
after Kissell conceded.

I couldn't get anyone interested in analyzing the data AFTER
it was too friggin late to change the outcome. : O

Its too bad that the Scoop article was factually incorrect r/e
the undervotes in Mecklenburg County.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. yeah, that's frustrating

I don't have any direct knowledge of the Kissell campaign (or NC Dems), so I don't want to be piling on -- but the unforced errors really rankle.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

21. and thank you to for first bringing up the ballot design

sometimes its amazing that the obvious is overlooked,
and I sure as heck overlooked this.

We hypothesize that straight ticket voting causes
NC's undervote in all elections to be a bit above the
national level.

We lost 100,000 votes for president in 2000 due to
straight ticket voting not counting for president.

It screws up all sorts of things.

Probably ballot definition files too.

This is the reason for posting things at DU,
to examine, suggest, work on the problems.

Not to get a bunch of platitudes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. what you said

I love puzzling out stuff that might help us to avoid repeating mistakes (or worse). Discussion on a discussion board. Crazy, but sometimes it just might work.

Hey, you mentioned Guilford.
http://www.co.guilford.nc.us/elections_cms/docs/ballottypes/BS_1.pdf
It looks like each half of each page would be a ballot screen (four in all). This particular design doesn't give the impression that the House race is somehow part of a straight-ticket column. I haven't looked at all NC undervotes (to say the least!!) to see whether there are other designs we should be staring at.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

23. data at SBOE, but not handy to use

the NC 2006 election data is at the State Board of Elections website,
but it is not in easy to use format.

http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/main_primary.asp?ED=11xx07xx2006&EL=GENERAL&YR=2006&CR=A

My computer would choke on it just as badly as my brain.

It is possible that I could request (for fee) the SBOE to create a disk
for me with the requested info combined.

If I do that, what specifically should I ask them for?

(We were spoiled in NC, Justin Moore did this data stuff for us in the 2004 election,
but he got his PHD and headed off to California).

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. ah, never ask a control freak that question ;)

It shouldn't be too hard to estimate undervote rates for various races from the precinct-level data. Except... the main dataset doesn't (as far as I can see) contain total turnout figures, and those data don't appear to be posted yet.

EDIT TO ADD: got distracted by another correspondence. To elaborate on my subject -- basically my feeling is that if I (or Justin Moore or anyone else) can compute numbers from data already available, that's better than hoping that someone else did it right for us. And if the available data don't support the calculations, well, that's a problem in itself.

[troubleinwinter]

16. Interesting point about ballot layout.

"... the House races appeared at the bottom of the first column, which was headed, "FOR STRAIGHT PARTY VOTING." So, voters who did not intend to vote a straight-party ticket may have skipped to the second column."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

20. OMG - I believe that is IT

Yep, the undervote was high, not as high as Collins stated,
but the ballot design issue MAKES sense!

Good job, Trouble.

Good problem solver.

I am trying to find other touchscreen counties
with sample ballots, to see what they did.

I checked Guilford, but they didn't show the actual
screen, so I don't know if they screwed up their ballot design
or not!!!!!!!!!


Thankfully.

[BeFree]

15. I read all this and wonder...

...are you trying to tell us that you think the election was fair and square? That we have no reason to doubt the results?

I see scant evidence that refutes what autorank presented. But the overall tone seems to be an attempt at doing just that, and I wonder - Why?

It all seems like an attempt to tell us that the case is closed and we should just move on, nothing to see here.

[troubleinwinter]

17. On the contrary...

I do not see the OP as saying, "the case is closed and we should just move on, nothing to see here".

Rather, the OP is saying that there is much about the subject to LOOK AT, SEE, UNDERSTAND, ANNALISE, CORRECT, and CLARIFY in relation to what is presented in the scoop article.

A more complete understanding of facts and questions helps us to learn.

By your "tone" suggesting that the subject of the scoop article should not be further discussed, it might seem that you are the one suggesting that we "move along", not the OP.

[autorank]

24. A Response to All of Your Points

Your election law says::
NC State Law
§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.
(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.

I think that we should both call for a complete recount of District 8 regardless of legal requirements or other factors given what’s come up and what is discussed below. The state has “discretionary recounts” – this is the time. I’ll respond to all of your comments.

YOU COMMENT:
Some of the information for this article may have come from this website: The Mysterious Mecklenburg Undervote of 2006 In the November 2, 2006 election, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina had several very close results in both national and state races...http://home.earthlink.net/~meckvote06 / The website info was put together by Vinod Thomas, an observer for the Larry Kissell campaign. (This is very interesting)

None of the information in the article came from that web site. This is the first time I’ve seen it. Thanks. You say that since it came from an observer in the Kissell campaign, “(This is interesting)” as though there is some problem with that. Most everyone on DU is a Democrat (and I presume you are). Does that somehow disqualify them/us from making value comments on elections?

YOU COMMENT:
However, an examination of the data at the Mecklenburg County BOE website shows: the Mecklenburg County undervote was 4%. 150,952 of 157,252 voters, or 95.99%, cast a vote for a US Representative. Isn't that normal, more or less? From the summary http://www.meckboe.org/pages/Election/Summary.html

Ii linked the three congressional races individually as reported on the Mecklenburg Board web site and I also show screen shots of those individual sites here. For each of the three races, there’s a figure for Voter turnout and then the Republican and Democratic candidate. That’s where the difference comes from. Here are the links to the Mecklenburg Board of Elections web sites for each race with the figures below 8th Dist. Results 9th Dist. Results 12th Dist. Results Please note this statement on the District 8 web page: “Contains Information for: Absentee by Mail, Early Voting, Election Day Machine, Provisional, Curb Side Results shown in this multi-county race are votes cast in Mecklenburg County only.” Seems clear to me, the voter turnout and vote totals for the candidates (and difference/undrevote) is vouched for by this statement.

Summary from the Mecklenburg County Board of Elections Links listed above:


Now, if they are telling people that they were not serious or accurate about the 19297 voter turnout figure and the 16,088 combined votes for Democrat Kissell and Republican Hayes, my response is that’s a reason to question everything. Here are the screen shots: Screen Shots of Districts 8, 9, 12 Mecklenburg

If there is some vote incorporation process where absentees get allocated arbitrarily, my response is that’s another reason to question everything. In San Diego, California 50th, there was an allocation of absentees in a way that made no sense. The ballots were not assigned to precincts weeks after the election. They lost any claim to validity. Same here.

I’m happy and justified to use their published figures until they open the whole operation up for a forensic examination…of everything. Otherwise, their race by race figures for Turnout stand and the undrevote/difference comes from the chart above. Presenting contradictory evidence is a sign of serious problems. The Board can’t give with the hand of individual reporting showing major differences between vote totals and turnout and take away with the other of cryptic reconciliation that makes no sense. The results are competently produced or they are suspect. And, of course, these are touch screens. For all anybody knows, they’re off in all different directions and there’s no way for us to tell.

If the county changes it’s reporting and numbers on their official report, they I’ll have to write a different article “County Changes Results in NC 8th. Which Numbers Can We Believe? .

YOU COMMENT:
Meanwhile - A few things not covered in the article. 1. NC has a different version iVotronic than Sarasota, and it has a "paper trail". 2. Larry Kissell (D) requested and obtained a manual recount of the VVPAT in Mecklenburg County. Larry Kissell's attorneys and observers were there, and reporters were there. In spite of what some say, at least some voters do check their paper printout, regardless of what others say. I know because I hear from people. The State Board of Elections advised me that - "instructions were also included (page 13) in the four million voter guides" (instructions on how to verify the vote on the iVotronic)

1. FL-NC “different versions” - I refer to the iVotronics as the “same class” of touch screens. I also say “North Carolina requires a paper trail for touch screen voting machines” and clearly indicate that Florida does not. This covers the difference that we see. Since we the source code is not open for examination, we can’t know how close the software is, although they’re both touch screens and both called iVotronicss. Same vendor, same brand, same functionality, one has a printer. , one doesn’t which was covered in the article. Would be nice to see the source code?

With regard to the recount, I produced the relevant section of your state law on recounts below. I have text and a link below.. He got an initial recount, which qualified him for a 3% “hand to eye” recount. Of course, there’s nothing to count on the touch screens, no ballots. I’m surprised you’re defending touch screens so adamantly. I thought you were a big optical scan fan and in favor of having those at 100% (the AccuVote right?). “End user” quality assurance, relying on voters actually checking their ballots thoroughly is not an accepted method of quality assurance. It’s part of it but tertiary. Primary and secondary QA is by the maker and customer through thorough testing. We just saw today that discredited (by the EAC) Ciber (with Wiley) had a role in approving Sarasota’s machines. Who tested Mecklenburg’s? .The paper receipts are not a fool proof test.

YOU COMMENT:
3. Carrie Levine, reporter for the Charlotte Observer stated that she observed
the recount and that it did follow protocol and the law completely. Levine answered my many questions thoroughly, because I had so many doubts. (I had heard doubts from an observer).clavinet @ charlotteobserver.com Levine, who has done some good writing on election issues was adamant that the paper was recounted as the law orders. Levine advised that the "paper trail" was extremely difficult to recount, because the iVotronic doesn't print a summary, but prints everything, and it takes longer to find the final selection in a contest. Counters had to go back and count some ballots several times because they were very very hard to read.

The reporter points out problems with the machines. Clearly they’re not user friendly for auditing and recounts. With regard to the statement that the county, as you say, “follow protocol and the law completely,” in every precinct, one reporter’s observations cannot support that district wide assertion. I don’t doubt that you “hear” from people but a formal system of checking is needed. Mecklenburg is no different than other places.

In 2004, the Voter Protection team from Duke found there were significant problems
.



Duke Voter Protection Team Report 2004

YOU COMMENT:
4. The Scoop article says that NC 08 was a stronghold for Larry Kissell,(DEM). How can the NC 08th be a stronghold for Larry Kissell, considering that Kissell is a high school social studies teacher and former textiles worker who never ran for office before, and who did not get serious backing from the democratic party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Kissell

I make the statement simply on the numbers. Kissell won the Mecklenburg part of the 8th by 68% to 32% (see above). That’s what you’d call a stronghold I suspect his working class background as a textile worker and current work as a teacher helped him. Sounds like John Edwards a bit. But 68-32%, wow, those are some numbers.

YOU COMMENT:
Kissell's opponent, Robin Hayes (R) is also the incumbent, and has held the seat since 1999. Before that, Hayes served two terms in the NC House of Reps. Hayes was the GOP nominee for Governor in 1996. Kissell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hayes

Here’s how Hayes is described: Charles Cook, an even handed, long time political analyst, described the 8th as a split personality district – ½ Republican and ½ Democrat. He described Hayes as holding on rather than a powerhouse candidate. Incumbency isn’t what made him strong, it’s what allowed him to survive by a thread, if we believe the count. Here is Hayes latest comment from the Charlotte Observer “A weekly newspaper in Concord, Hayes’ hometown, quoted the congressman this week as saying that stability in Iraq ultimately depends on “spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men.” Hayes was speaking to the Concord Rotary Club. Guess being rich doesn’t make you smart (Hayes is an heir to a large textile fortune).

YOU COMMENT
Kissell did not get support from the Democratic Party: Dismissal of Kissell backfires. When Kissell called the Democratic bigwigs in Washington asking for a little help with his congressional campaign, he couldn't get his telephone calls returned, said Thomas Mills, one of Kissell's consultants. With little help from Washington, Kissell was outspent roughly 8-to-1 by Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes. http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/517366.html

Good point. I wish he had received more support but I’m not questioning Dean and Emanuel on this issue. They knocked it out of the park. At the same time, that action has little to do with the counting and reporting, the missing ballots or undervotes.

YOU COMMENT:
5. Incorrect ballots were given out in split precincts, and probably did impact the NC 08 contest to a degree. -"446 wrongly voted in razor-thin Black race Poll workers blamed; speaker stands to gain. Charlotte Observer, NC - Nov 15, 2006 Hundreds of voters who don't live in N.C. House Speaker Jim Black's district improperly cast ballots in the tight race, Mecklenburg election officials said Tuesday http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/16014781.htm Additionally, NC has early voting, and this is another grand opportunity to give a lot of voters the wrong ballots.
Mecklenburg County would have at least 80 different ballot styles to offer at each early voting site. (About 1/3 of all ballots are cast early).

I read about of those incidents in that article. The problem is we can’t know what the impact of this was without a full forensic evaluation of Mecklenburg County. Are you saying that this system failure resulted in foul-ups in the allocation of ballots etc., etc. ? Why would the same Board of Elections be able to conduct a recount in full compliance of the law, as you said above, when the material recounted was jumbled up by the way they ran the precinct organization. Why would the same board that did this be able to handle touch screens that are, well, touchy? This does speak to systemic problems there and it also shows why the allocation of these and any other absentees is in question. That’s why I used the figures for each race as reported by the board. That’s where we start. .

YOU COMMENT:
6. Larry Kissell conceded halfway through the recount. Mecklenburg was the 5th of 10 counties to be recounted. Kissell concedes defeat News 14 Carolina, NC – CHARLOTTE With defeat appearing inevitable, Larry Kissell conceded Wednesday to GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in the state's 8th Congressional District, ending one of the nation's last unresolved races for a seat in the U.S. House. 5 of the remaining counties had not done a recount http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=95335&Sec...

Francine Busby conceded on election night on advice of a DC political consultant. Was that a good idea? No, because there were 10’s of thousands of uncounted ballots. Whether or not Kissel should have conceded has nothing to do with whether or not he won or lost. It’s the public right to now that those taking office were actually elected. The recount should have continued to protect the public.

YOU COMMENT:
If anyone would like to research this matter more fully, that would be great. But I am unable to confirm dishonesty in the vote counting teams that worked in Mecklenburg County.

There is nothing in the article about “dishonesty” or fraud. I used the same term Jennings and her attorney use regarding Florida’s 13th, voting “machine malfunction.” The issue centers on looking at the contradictory procedures and report and demanding a full accounting here or anywhere else the government can't convince us there's been a free and fair election.

END


===============================

Appendix: State Law Section and Articles

As you point out above, there are problems in Mecklenburg like all areas where there is electronic voting.

Problems with Mecklenburg County
Election Day 2004
http://www.flcv.com/Mecklen.html

From VoteLaw
http://tinyurl.com/y52er3
More on the Mecklenburg County decision to cut funds for Sunday voting sites
The Charlotte Observer reports: Mecklenburg County commissioners may reverse a controversial attempt to stop Sunday voting that prompted outrage from Democrats and accusations of voter suppression on Wednesday.

Commissioners Chairman Tom Cox has called a special meeting for Friday afternoon to reconsider a party-line vote from Tuesday night's meeting. Led by Republicans, the commissioners voted 5-3 not to accept a state grant for early voting because local elections officials planned to use part of the money for voting this Sunday.
Voting will happen Sunday as scheduled at four libraries and the Board of Elections. Elections director Michael Dickerson said his office will appropriate other funds until the commissioners make a final decision.

Tuesday's action has sparked a partisan, racially charged debate and interrupted the plans of many groups -- including several black churches -- for a "Souls to the Polls" effort after services on Sunday. -- Board rethinks Sunday voting (Charlotte Observer)
This article contains more details than the article I carried yesterday.
Posted by Ed on October 21, 2004 07:01 AM | Permalink


446 wrongly voted in razor-thin Black race Poll workers blamed; speaker stands to gain http://tinyurl.com/y38bn6
CARRIE LEVINE 11/15/06
[e-mail]
Hundreds of voters who don't live in N.C. House Speaker Jim Black's district improperly cast ballots in the tight race, Mecklenburg election officials said Tuesday.
The news throws the already too-close-to-call race -- and the future of one of the state's most prominent politicians -- into more doubt. Election workers at a southeast Charlotte precinct that straddles two districts gave the wrong ballots to 446 voters, wrongly allowing them to vote in the Jim Black-Hal Jordan race.
Election officials said there's no way to separate the 105 votes correctly cast Nov. 7 at McClintock Middle School from the improperly cast ballots, and the tainted results could force a new election.
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=130408

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2005=
SESSION LAW 2005-323
SENATE BILL 223

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/Senate/HTML/S223v7.html

§ 163 182.7. Ordering recounts.
(a) Discretionary Recounts. – The county board of elections or the State Board of Elections may order a recount when necessary to complete the canvass in an election. The county board may not order a recount where the State Board of Elections has already denied a recount to the petitioner.
(b) Mandatory Recounts for Ballot Items Within the Jurisdiction of the County Board of Elections. – In a ballot item within the jurisdiction of the county board of elections, a candidate shall have the right to demand a recount of the votes if the difference between the votes for that candidate and the votes for a prevailing candidate is not more than one percent (1%) of the total votes cast in the ballot item, or in the case of a multiseat ballot item not more than one percent (1%) of the votes cast for those two candidates. The demand for a recount must be made in writing and must be received by the county board of elections by 5:00 P.M. on the first day after the canvass. The recount shall be conducted under the supervision of the county board of elections.
(c) Mandatory Recounts for Ballot Items Within the Jurisdiction of the State Board of Elections. – In a ballot item within the jurisdiction of the State Board of Elections, a candidate shall have the right to demand a recount of the votes if the difference between the votes for that candidate and the votes for a prevailing candidate are not more than the following:
(1) For a nonstatewide ballot item, one percent (1%) of the total votes cast in the ballot item, or in the case of a multiseat ballot item, one percent (1%) of the votes cast for
§ 163 182.7A. Additional provisions for hand to eye recounts.
(a) The rules promulgated by the State Board of Elections for recounts shall provide that if the initial recount is not hand to eye, and if the recount does not reverse the results, the candidate who had originally been entitled to a recount may, within 24 hours of the completion of the first recount, demand a second recount on a hand to eye basis in a sample of precincts. If the initial recount was not hand to eye and it reversed the results, the candidate who had initially been the winner shall have the same right to ask for a hand to eye recount in a sample of precincts.
That sample shall be all the ballots in three percent (3%) of the precincts casting ballots in each county in the jurisdiction of the office, rounded up to the next whole number of precincts. For the purpose of that calculation, each one stop (early) voting site shall be considered to be a precinct. The precincts to be recounted by a hand to eye count shall be chosen at random within each county.If the results of the hand to eye recount differ from the previous results within those precincts to the extent that extrapolating the amount of the change to the entire jurisdiction (based on the proportion of ballots recounted to the total votes cast for that office) would result in the reversing of the results, then the State Board of Elections shall order a hand to eye recount of the entire jurisdiction in which the election is held. There shall be no cost to the candidate for that recount in the entire jurisdiction.
(b) Recounts under this section shall be governed by rules adopted under G.S. 163 182.7(d).
(c) No complete hand to eye recount shall be conducted under this section if one has already been done under another provision of law."

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

29. the undervotes in Mecklenburg County

Mecklenburg/NC 08 not same as Sarasota/NC 13

Sarasota had

-drastically high undervotes (18,000)
-paperless iVotronics
-no recounts allowed (of paper if you have it)
-candidate has not conceded
-reports of votes being changed

Meck had

-moderate undervotes (6,300 or 4%)
-new iVotronics with VVPAT
-manual recount was ordered for 10 counties (NC 08 Dist)
-candidate conceded and stopped the recount after 5 counties
-no reports of votes being changed

Several of us already reviewed the NC 08 election weeks ago, looking for a story.
Some reviewed the vote data after the election. I spoke with an observer for the Kissell
campaign, and the reporter who observed the recount in Mecklenburg County.

We did not find any "dirt", and certainly no "Sarasota-Size" undervote.

The actual problem in Mecklenburg is that:

The county is reporting incorrect turnout figures on the website, a fact that can be easily seen by examining the precinct data. available from the County website. Go here and select the second link from the top on the left side. http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/enrs/main_primary.asp?ED=11xx07xx2006&EL=GENERAL&YR=2006&CR=A

You will see that the numbers of "ballots cast" are grouped together for vote-by-mail precincts, curbside "precincts", and provisional ballot "precincts". These groups of ballots cast are then attributed to every contest -- even when they don't apply, so that the total ballots cast is too high for every contest.

If the Mecklenburg precinct details are correct, the problem is that the county officials have reported inaccurate numbers on the website, not that the undervote is excessive.

I am familiar with NC's law since I pushed to get it drafted and introduced,
beginning in March of 2004.
I nominated 2 of the people (David Allen being one) on the committee that drafted the law,
I provided information and testimony regarding electronic voting problems in NC.
I found Computer Experts Justin Moore and Chuck Herrin to testify to the committee.

As imperfect as the law is, it is much better than what many states have.

I am familiar with the election breakdowns in NC going back to 1998, as they are
documented on my website, www.ncvoter.net

As for touchscreens, we lobbied county by county for 100 counties to push for optical scan
and automark, and only 23 counties wanted touchscreens. We set up a network of activists
and regional directors to handle this push. Verified Voting specially re-designed
their action database to use to email the 100 counties' commissioners.

NC has gone from 40 paperless touchscreen counties to 23 VVPAT counties and 77 optical scan.

Accurate information has been an essential ingrediant to our fight - opponents will take
incorrect information and use it to discredit everything else that is said.

Tomorrow will mark the third year that NC Verified Voting has existed.
Our work is not done, but we have accomplished alot.

[galloglas]

31. A question ?

Tomorrow will mark the third year that NC Verified Voting has existed.
Our work is not done, but we have accomplished a lot.

"...but we have accomplished a lot." Good. And I cede that to you. But what, if I may ask, is is your "final goal"? The end result of your ER work? The status, or system in place, that would let you say, "Good. It is done. Election Reform is finished. Completed"

Whether it is a word, or sentence, or complicated explanation. Please given us a bottom-line description of the "final product" and what it contains. (like "Does it have a place for machines?" or, Should private enterprise be allowed to run our elections?")

[Bill Bored]

55. What are YOUR end results and what state are you in Galloglas?

I'm just askin'.:)

You know, regardless of what Congress does, Presidential Elections are run by the States. So if anyone thinks Rush Holt, Bev Harris or anyone else can fix them, think again. It has to be done at the State level.

There is no Constitutional right to vote for President. Some of the newbies here may not know this amid all the other stuff that's discussed here (or NOT discussed due to all the spiffy new IGNOR-AMUS features now in use).

So everyone should be working their butts off in their own states and not just worrying about NC, or any others.

I'm just sayin'.:)

[Kelvin Mace]

67. Doncha just love

how we get all this advice on how to do our job?

[galloglas]

76. The Show Me State

The end result? Well, Senator James Talent was unable to steal another term as Senator.

In, 2000, we got a dead man, Gov. Mel Carnahan, to beat John Ashcroft. That was delightful, until Bush picked his cabinet and Ashcroft was made Attorney General. So sometimes when you win, you lose.

You know, regardless of what Congress does, Presidential Elections are run by the States.

Yes. All powers not reserved to the US Federal government are reserved to the states. Even the popular vote for election of Senators, is relatively new. They used to be picked by the state legislatures.

So if anyone thinks Rush Holt, Bev Harris or anyone else can fix them, think again. It has to be done at the State level.

Nothing Federal can fix the problem. HAVA has done a damned good job of allowing brigands to fix the elections, however. So Federal legislation can either hurt, or help, the entire Electoral Process, but it cannot save the states from themselves. Granted.

There is no Constitutional right to vote for President.

I addressed it above. The Electoral College is what it is.

I would note, though, that despite there being "no Constitutional Right" to vote for President, the citizen voters of the US have being doing so for quite some time.

Some of the newbies here may not know this amid all the other stuff that's discussed here (or NOT discussed due to all the spiffy new IGNOR-AMUS features now in use).

I take it you do not like the new system? I have not made up my mind yet. I used it for the first time today. But, I certainly understand that many "newbies" may have much to learn. And, I would posit, not only about the law, but about tactical and strategic matters of dealing with The Powers that Be.

So everyone should be working their butts off in their own states and not just worrying about NC, or any others.

I agree, partly. Working our butts off in our own states, I agree with. And also about NOT just worrying about NC, or any others.

I disagree if you believe we should ignore what is happening in others states. The 20+ states with no VVPAT, no paper, are a problem (at the least). It must be addressed.

A short parallel is this. The National Electoral Reform is like a war. There are different groups, in different states, who can be likened unto armies fighting for Electoral Reform. And every army has its general.

When any general, or their army, takes action (or fails to) that imperils either the other armies, or the overall status of the war for National Electoral Reform, it should be addressed.


One last thing. This war should be fought on a non-partisan basis, even if Democrats seem to always be on the losing end of "glitches" and "anomalies".

The failure of many in Missouri to understand that, caused those same people to fail to accomplish anything toward reform. Their efforts only enabled local Election Directors, County Clerks, and the SoS to say "we had public input".

And it caused a split in what could otherwise been a united effort, causing all good which was accomplished to be lessened, and the disasters that occurred to be worse. All blame can be laid on a refusal to cut ties, and allegiances to political parties.

I think that is hard to do when any generals, or armies, crawl in bed with any of the political parties, or take any outside monies that have any conditions attached.

It is destructive to the cause, and it forces compromises that should not have to be made.

Bill, you were vouched for, to me, by Wilms. Until you show yourself differently, I'll accept Wilms word for that. But perhaps, if we want to talk constructively, we should move this to PMs? There are many people who have become very out of sorts with the new Ignore program, and I really don't want to set myself up for pots shots at ERD while we communicate.

[Bill Bored]

110. Well sure, but NC has some of the toughest laws in the country.

So while everyone needs to be vigilant, it might be better to let the local experts do what they do best and learn from them, or at least ask them what's going on before going off half cocked and banning dissenting views on top of that. No?

The other thing that occurs to me is that some of the biggest critics are living in states with much bigger election problems than NC has at the moment. And they're also the biggest critics of Congressional legislation that might be helpful to them. That's no way to win friends and influence people IMO.

[Kelvin Mace]

66. I don't speak for Joyce

but we do work together.

My FINAL goal is:

- No private corporations writing the software. I hope to get a project started at UNC to develop our OWN software (open source) that uses off-the shelf hardware, thus having software written by citizens of North Carolina, for citizens of North Carolina.

- Elimination of TS systems from the 25 (out of 100) counties that use them, replacing them with more reliable OpScan systems, backed by our current law mandating post-election HAND-COUNTED audits of a random sample of precincts.

- Inclusion of TECHNICALLY competent members on the SBoE and county BoEs.

After that, I take on eliminating gerrymandering.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. do come join us for cookies and punch! (#37, 68) n/t

[Bill Bored]

54. How 'bout a recount of that Virginia Senate Race? nt

[Time for change]

40. Thank you for setting the record straight

and for all you've done in NC for election reform.

I almost used auto's information myself, in a post that I posted yesterday on DU.

But before using it I wondered, why didn't they do a recount in NC 8? (auto's post I believe clearly implied that a recount was not done, since he said "If the paper trail receipts are available and examined, they represent a smoking gun that validates the Florida case".) So I did some googling and found out that a recount was done (a 3% sample, that is). So then I wondered, well, why didn't it show a big discrepancy from the machine vote, given the unbelievably high undervote rate. So I tried to reply to auto's thread, asking if he could explain it, and if he was aware that a recount had been done.

But I couldn't reply, because I was blocked. Why did he block me? I can only assume that it was because a few weeks ago I asked him for clarification on another thread, regarding apparently false information. And now I see that he blocked you too. I think that this is a gross abuse of the blocking function, the only purpose of which is to cut off legitimate debate.

[troubleinwinter]

41. Oh Boy! You are a member of our club, too!!!

Punch and cookies tomorrow, remember! (see post #37)

"... the only purpose of which is to cut off legitimate debate". It does seem that way, doesn't it?

[Time for change]

57. That's the way I see it

I understand the purpose of the blocking function, but I think that it has substantial potential for abuse. It may or may not be true that it is abused infrequently, but when it is, it has the potential to hurt us because then people are left with false ideas, and if we spread them around that discredits us. The ability of people to respond to posts to correct misinformation, or at least argue about it, is one of the things that makes DU a very informative site. That's why I'm glad that WillOurVoteBCounted corrected this. Perhaps that kind of action will be the main way to prevent abuse of the blocking function.

Hell, nobody likes to be criticized. I make mistakes, and people call me on it from time to time, and I don't like it when that happens any more than most people do. But it would be wrong of me to block someone for doing that. If someone doesn't want to talk to me, fine. But if you post information or analysis on a public forum, you ought to be willing to respond to challenges to what you're saying. Otherwise, it's very much like the so-called "Town hall" meetings that Bush holds, where all the participants are pre-screened. Maybe it makes everyone at the meeting feel good, but it certainly does nothing for mental stimulation or the development or refinement of good ideas.

I hope that I don't ever succumb to the temptation to block someone for that reason. In fact, I hope that I don't block anyone at all, ever - though I can't promise that I won't. Maybe we'll get to the point where when someone posts an extensive and important analysis, if they want to be taken seriously, they'll have to state "Nobody is or will be blocked by me from responding to this message".

Tell me when and where the party is, and I'll be there :).

[troubleinwinter]

68. I read ER threads with intensity.

I read them slowly and carefully. It is a very complicated issue, with many facets. I find that I learn the MOST when challenging argument and back & forth discussion/disagreement is played out at length.

One thing that has bothered me for some time, was a habit of certain posters to 'cut out' of the discussion when things got particularly challenging, only to start another thread to assert their ideas without answering questions or challenges.

I asked some sincere questions to the 'all hand-count' folks about logistics and presented some facts and numbers, but they abandoned the thread, only to start a new one asserting their position again and avoiding the questions altogether.

This new block function appears to have simplified and streamlined their avoidance of challenging discussion. It seems a shame, because the challenging discussions are educational, even to those who may not take part in them, but read them.

I learned two interesting and important ideas in two threads here in ER in 2 days, brought about by challenging back & forth discussion.

Those who 'block' others seem to want to propagandize or cheerlead or gain fans & followers, but not to educate and convince by honest discussion. So there ya go.

Our Thursday meeting will take up the debate about whether or not OnTheOtherHand should be bringin' a flask to fancy up his punch or not. My position will be that 'taint nobody's bisness nohow, so long as he brings me some too. Some might propose he hasta bring enough for all. We'll probly argue for some time over it. See ya there! (bring a flask)

[Time for change]

83. I wasn't aware that there are others who are also abusing the system

I sure hope that before too long it is either abondoned or some good reforms are made. Maybe one reform would be for anyone posting an OP to have, prominently displayed on the OP itself, how many DUers that person currently has blocked. Maybe people will eventually learn that excessive blocking is a warning sign, of a need to be very skeptical of the information presented.

With regard to the OTOH question, I think that he should bring enough for everyone. After all the stress we've gone through, we'll need it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

84. all right, then, belly up to the ba-- umm, the folding table

I've got some Irish whiskey (recommended by Bruce O'Dell) for those who don't like punch. (Also some gluten-free cookies -- I hope that's just a temporary thing. I have to say, they aren't exactly "cookies," but they sure are full of chocolatey goodness!)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

87. Lookie, Autoblock is posting here

and I am once agains prevented from issuing
a response or correction to Autoblock on my own thread.


:rofl:

[Kurovski]

106. No, you're not prevented from responding. You can post whatever you like about his comments

anywhere else on the thread.

Obviously, you just have. But you've chosen to continue the snark-fest instead.

We all like to laugh.

[Bill Bored]

56. Those are the new INGOR-AMUS features, TFC!

If you think someone's going to disagree with you, you don't have to do any research to dispute them. Now you can just IGNORE them! Like an IGNOR-AMUS would!:rofl:

[Time for change]

58. Ah, I get it Bill

That will save us all a lot of time and stress. :P

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

70. another side-effect of the Ignor-Amus Feature

An Ignor-Amus :dunce: can post on the threads like this one.

And, an Ignor-Amus can block people from rebutting them on the
block-ee's thread. :rofl:

[Bill Bored]

74. Then they can ask their NON-IGNOR-AMUS friends if anyone's

saying anything they've been IGNORING!

[Kelvin Mace]

69. I always love how people from OUT OF STATE

know more about what is going on than us schlubs who actually live here and fight the battles.

"Will-you-vote" has actually DONE something about the issue of electronic voting machines, and she did it without asking anyone for a single dime in contributions. NC is an excellent example of what grassroots activists CAN accomplish. Diebold withdrew from the state rather than comply with the law Joyce helped pass. (I am not "outing" Joyce McCloy here, she has signed her name on her posts in the past.

If you want to know what Joyce has accomplished, check Google. Here's one link:

After EFF Litigation, Diebold Pulls Out of North Carolina

Raleigh, North Carolina - After a series of lawsuits led by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to defend North Carolina's election integrity laws, controversial electronic voting machine manufacturer Diebold Election Systems finally withdrew from the state's voting machine procurement process on Thursday.

In November, Diebold filed suit against the North Carolina Board of Elections to try to avoid a state requirement that vendors place into escrow all source code "that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system." Under a strong new state law, this code is to be available to the Board of Elections and the chairs of the state political parties for review so that they could look for security vulnerabilities. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local voter integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and succeeded in convincing the judge to dismiss the case and require Diebold to comply.

Despite Diebold's open admission that it could not meet the state requirements for voting machine integrity, the Board of Elections later agreed to certify Diebold. EFF filed suit against the Board of Elections last week, arguing that the Board had violated its own obligations to perform extensive security-related tests of all of the code on all certified systems prior to certification. The court denied EFF's motion, but Diebold was nonetheless forced to withdraw from the North Carolina procurement process because it did not escrow its code.

In a letter to the Board of Elections on Thursday, Diebold indicated that it is still unwilling to comply with the law. Instead, it offered to help the state "revise" the law so that "all vendors will be able to comply with the state election law."

"The purpose of election integrity law is to ensure that votes are accurately counted, not to ensure that all equipment vendors can comply," said Matt Zimmerman, EFF's Staff Attorney specializing in electronic voting issues. "The law requires voting machine transparency for good reason. All vendors must realize that the public will not and should not accept a process that forces them to simply trust, but not verify, their votes are accurately counted."

By withdrawing from North Carolina's electronic voting contract, Diebold cedes the market to competitor ES&S. The rival company has stated that it will comply with all state escrow requirements.

http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_12.php

Other links:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/capblog/archives/2005/11/weekend_update_4.html
http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=8&id=59&Itemid=58
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:x-nmt9ENgBIJ:beta.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/20050717/NEWSREC0101/507160329+joyce+mccloy+voting+david+allen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=firefox-a
http://www.votersunite.org/article.asp?id=4707
http://orangepolitics.org/2004/12/is-your-vote-counted/
http://dfa.meetup.com/275/boards/view/viewthread?thread=1713523
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2191
http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6162
http://en.allexperts.com/e/b/bl/black_box_voting.htm

And a few thousand more if you have the time :)

I wondered how long it would take for some folks around here to use the new banning feature to shut down discussion from folks who contradict their point of view. Not long apparently.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

71. deja vu - our opposition to the toilet paper

Deja vu:

Proposed Voting Plan Met With Opposition

by Mark Binker, News Record
July 17th, 2005

...Although the proposed law would require paper records, Allen and other advocates are unhappy with the type of paper record that the current version of the bill requires.

Voters would see their votes printed on a long strand of paper, much like a cash register tape, kept behind a clear panel. They would not be able to touch the paper record.

"The average person would have difficulty reading them, and they're very hard to recount," said Joyce McCloy, an advocate from Winston-Salem.

Voters should be given a printout that they can hold and examine up close before turning it into election officials, McCloy said.

Thankfully, 77 of the 100 counties chose optical scan

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

73. Collins was told data wrong before posting the story

so he knew he would be misleading people and chose to do it anyway.

[Bill Bored]

75. You mean he IGNORED that? nt

[Time for change]

81. Do you have any idea why he ignored it?

[autorank]

85. To clear the record on prior contact before the article - narrative and evidence.

To clear the record on prior contact before the article - narrative and evidence.

Opening point: Several here are complaining about me not making contact with you or others etc. prior to publishing an article which seems to bother you. Yet, there is a clearly process of personal attack going on here and no one of you has bothered to contact me about this most serious false allegation. That would require an intermediary in some cases but so what. The argument you use against me on the article (which I don’t accept, see below) is violated here in the speculation and negative aspersions based on no contact with me. I’ll gladly explain the contact I had on this matter just before the article was published.

First, look at the data on the Mecklenburg Board of Elections sites which list the results for the individual races. You look at those and tell me what conclusion you draw. This is not a reported record in a secondary source, it’s the official record. There are clear mandates to report accurately and so forth. From that data, and willyourvotesBcounted even acknowledged that these show undervotes, the figures I presented are correct. Where else do you start but the public record? I provided a detailed response to willyourvotesBcounted, every point she offered. That’s up thread. My positions have not changed.

When the Board changes these numbers, I’m happy to write a correction indicating that I’d used numbers that the board now claims are incorrect and also point out that the change strongly argues for the type of forensic investigation that Kathy Dopp and ElectionArchive.Org recommends. If nothing else, some of Kathy’s critics are not on record supporting her. Why have the numbers not changed?

In terms of your assumption about prior based on an assertion here about, here are the facts.
On Sunday night after the article was submitted, I called Ellen Theisen of Vote-Pad and VotersUnite.org because I was told that she had questions. I got her number from the person who told me this and called her. This is obviously proactive on my part. I spent about 20 minutes on the phone with her discussing my use of the numbers. She told me that she felt I was taking the wrong tact because she knew that there were really lower undrevotes. I asked for and did not get specific references that would support the alternative to the public numbers. I explained that these were official postings, they’re not trivial, and that absent something tangible that indicated these were not the board’s real numbers, I was going with this data. I even provided the links from the article (the official site in NC) and asked her to log on with me to see them I was told that the board people really didn’t know what they were doing, hence these inaccurate results. The entire conversation was cordial.

The rationale for my decision provided to Ellen was that given the public data there was a problem. I was going to use that until it was changed.

The conversation continued on a cordial tone and I was told to be sure to get screen shots of the data as part of the article (see below). Since there were no links or written rationales provided via email to contradict what I was publishing, the story continued.

Now this nastiness begins based on nothing. It’s gone from the numbers are bad to he knew the numbers were bad (nonsense). The above is the truth about the contact I had with Ellen. It will show the rationale in that conversation for proceeding was consistent with what I posted here.

As further evidence of that, here’s an email I sent her recently, the 16th, in response to one she sent me after the article was published. I’ve removed Thiesen’s address and one line at the bottom of the email unrelated to this issue. This isn’t from today or yesterday, it’s in response to an email she sent me earlier in the week:

<“excerpt” [br />From: Michael Collins <[e-mail]>

excerpts from articles)

To: Ellen Theisen [e-mail] (removed for privacy)
Cc:
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 06:29 pm
Subject: Re: Your article on Scoop
Private:

First of all I don't know that their numbers are inaccurate. I've just heard from you and a DU poster or two. Second, I said in my response to that DU poster, willyourvotesBcounted, that as soon as the Mecklenburg Board changes it's web site and admits that the information is wrong, I will be glad to write a story on the confusion there and explain that they now claim that their public postings were misleading. Third, posting election results accurately is required by law in every state. If these are inaccurate, then they've violated the law, perhaps, and certainly the public trust. How do you know that the "back room" data is accurate? Were you there (rhetorical)?

What's owed is a full and thorough forensic audit of that Board to determine how they take, tabulate, and report votes. If my article contributes to this process, that's good. I'm not holding my breath.

When I explained to you on the phone that I was going with the reported data and explained my rationale, you said be sure to get screen shots. There was none of this tone.

In any event, that's my response.

They can change their data, in which case everything is in question, or they can leave it there, in which case it stants. It is the public reporting.

Mike

If the data changes so that undervotes are not indicated, then there’s a correction. A retraction is not appropriate since I went form public data. Imagine if federal results were posted indicating problems, a controversy arose, and the government said, “Oh, these official results are not really correct, you should know that.” Well I didn’t and the controversies over the election show there were questions and problems.

Here’s a question I have.

HOW DID KISSELL ARRIVE AT HIS DECISION TO CONCEDE AFTER FIVE OF THE 10 COUNTIES WERE RECOUNTED IN THE 3% RECOUNT?

Who advised him to call off the recount?

Even if they were not favorable to him, he had nothing to lose by having the recount, paid for by the state.

So that’s the story and it’s the full story.

When the public report on “Turnout” and the individual candidate totals (in all three districts) changes, then there’s a new story. In the mean time, it would be better to support a full investigation of this than waste time speculating about nefarious motives.


-----------
Screen shots from official reports of results in District 8, 9, and 12, Mecklenburg County portions.
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D8.html - District 8 (and below)
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D9.html - District 9 (and below)
http://www.meckboe.org/pages/ENR2006/D12.html - District 12


Screen Shots of the above.

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. hey, why not?

Say you're a journalist, you have a chance to run a sensational story, and a respected election integrity activist (not some weird droid wonk like OTOH) contacts you to warn you that your facts are wrong. Do you

1) thank her for the warning and do more research?

2) run the story anyway (of course not mentioning her warning), unless she can provide documentation satisfactory to you?

:shrug:

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. suppose one actually wanted to know the iVotronic undervotes

(And let's suppose, for a moment, that one had access only to on-line BOE data.) One wouldn't rely on the district totals or the county-wide totals -- even if they agreed -- because they would mix in paper ballots. One would examine precinct-level data.

That's what the folks here did, and they got a defensible answer.

Ah, but how would autorank have found their work? Assuming that it's too "personal" to suggest he contact some NC activists to ask any questions whatsoever about the recount or anything else -- and unreasonable to suggest that he do the work himself -- well, how about Googling the words: mecklenburg undervote? Yup, that works.

Crazy, I know, but if one is proceeding on the assumption that he is about to break a shocking fact about Mecklenburg undervotes, one might just want to check something -- especially after a respected leader raised questions about the "fact."

WillYourVoteBCounted did go beyond the evidence in asserting that Collins "knew he would be misleading people." It's impossible to judge what Collins knows, or whether he cares. But he has confirmed that, faced with Ellen Theisen's warning, he decided to run with his story anyway, appealing to "public data" -- even though the public data basically blow up his whole story line. At most, he didn't have a story about double-digit iVotronic undervotes, he had a story about inconsistent turnout totals. (And, ironically, the inconsistency mostly hinges on double- and triple-counting of paper ballots -- mostly mail-in absentee ballots -- in the turnout figures.)

[Bill Bored]

51. This is NOT the place to correct the story.

The place to correct it is where it was published -- on Scoop.

I'm sure that if Al The Cat were to receive a well documented note about any inaccuracies in this or any other story on Scoop, he would make every effort to correct them -- wouldn't he? Or is he putting people on his ignore list too? :puke:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

60. Look - A Retraction!!!!

Check out this detailed and ernest retraction.

Well, isn't that classy?

Previous analsysis of data wrong, we were comparing
apples to oranges.....

Anything here sound familiar?

1/3/07 Forward from Kathy Dopp:

NOTICE: NEDA may have made a "faux pas".

The previous analysis of Florida's Curtis-Feeney U.S. Congressional
District 24 race has been temporarily withdrawn to verify the
consistency of the data we were asked to analyze (i.e. were apples <[br />polling + early votes] being compared to apples voters] to calculate number of under-votes?). Information will be
released as soon as it becomes available.

We have learned that Florida's election data reporting practices make
it impossible to compare its voter history files directly with its
official precinct vote count reports because:

1. the two files aggregate different vote types (eg. one combines
early Optical Scan and DRE votes by precinct, the other file separates
early DRE votes by precinct and combines all early Optical Scan votes
in one number for the entire county), and

2. several types of votes are not broken out by precinct in
Florida's official precinct vote count reports, but they are broken
out by precinct in the voter history file!

Arduous examination of paper records must be performed to obtain basic
vote count comparisons!

There is an urgent need for election reform legislation requiring
counties to release detailed vote count data like that the experts in
its voter history and official vote count files. (See press release
below). Without timely data release, it is impossible for the public
to exercise oversight over the election integrity until AFTER election
results have been certified and "winners" sworn into office. And even
that only if resources and time are available. This is unacceptable!

Preliminary examination of Volusia county summary data only shows that
there are at least 1,000 phantom votes in the Diebold official vote
count files for which no voters are recorded in the voter history
file, in addition to at least 1000 under-votes. Obtaining the vote
counts needed to thoroughly uncover how many voters were
disenfranchised or how many phantom votes exist in FL US House
district #24 may take weeks.

Please help us pass these recommendations so that citizens can have
effective timely oversight over elections:

PRESS RELEASE:

ELECTION INTEGRITY EXPERTS OFFER 14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION
National Election Data Archive

January 3, 2007

The question of ensuring an accurate, transparent count of the
people's vote has been at the forefront of concerns of many
individuals and groups, both private and governmental. How can we
guarantee that the actual will of the people is carried out? This
week the U.S. Senate and House will be meeting and voting on
recommendations to improve the voting system. Several of the nation's
foremost election integrity experts have spent the last several months
grappling with some of these issues and have come up with 14
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION TO ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
DEMOCRACY.

In light of the continuing problem of questionable election outcomes
in jurisdictions all over the country, where tens of thousands of
votes appear not to have been recorded correctly, these
recommendations are crucial to reestablishing trust in U.S. elections.

Just five of these recommendations would prevent the wrong candidate
being sworn into office as it appears may be happening in Florida's
House District 13 election. Due to the untimely release of complete
vote count data, investigators are just now turning up statistically
improbable vote outcomes and election challenges are still underway.

Those five recommendations, with just the briefest of definitions, are:

• Manual Audits, enough votes have to be manually hand counted to
ensure that the machine counts are not outcome-altering;

• Auditable Voting Systems, the system must provide a voter-verified
permanent paper copy of the vote that is sturdy enough for handling in
recounts and/or storage;

• Public Election Records, rapid access to paper and electronic
election records, and detailed vote counts in all vote types to ensure
that over or under votes in different vote types don't cancel each
other out and thereby obscure vote irregularities, before a race is
called;

• Public Right to Observe, genuine observation, not just presence in
the room is vital to the maintenance of fairness and transparency;

• Teeth in the Legislation, civil and/or criminal penalties or a
reduction of funding for failure to live up to the standards of a fair
and open election process, do not swear in until election contests are
satisfied.


To read the recommendations with details in full go to
http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/EI-FederalLegislationProposal.pdf

This highly qualified group of election integrity authorities is
comprised of attorneys, election law specialists, state election
officials, computer scientists, mathematicians, a designer of systems
for people with disabilities, and a public administration and election
policy expert. The complete list of experts, including their
qualifications, is available at
http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/ExpertsList.pdf

Congressional members and their staffs may go over any or all of their
concerns on the recommended legislation with these experts and their
associates.

This group of experts feels that enacting these recommendations will
help to ensure the integrity of our democracy. They urge you to
contact your US Senators and Representatives to encourage them to vote
for these recommendations.

Sincerely,

Kathy Dopp
http://electionarchive.org
Dedicated to Accurately Counted Elections

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. yes, similar, and sort of ironic

Kathy, to her credit, doesn't want to cling to misinformation. But the irony is that USCV (now NEDA) had a peer review model, and I suppose still does, but Kathy purged the people who disagreed with her too forcefully, famously including Bruce O'Dell. The people most likely to have caught this mistake before the paper was publicized are long gone.

USCV/NEDA has retracted a lot of papers, which reflects both Kathy's commitment to getting things right and her difficulty in processing discrepant ideas. Febble and I have been at ground zero, but Time for change and Foger Rox could testify to the problem, too. I bet others could as well.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

86. yep, at least Kathy Dopp retracts incorrect info

thats one step to maintaining creditability.

[Time for change]

82. I have to disagree with you there Bill

It was originally published in Scoop, but it was published on DU also, and received very prominent attention here. If it doesn't get corrected on DU (and even if it does, to a lesser extent), a large number of people will continue to believe it and to quote it. (I almost quoted it myself, before deciding to look into it further.) I don't believe that that (using and spreading bad information) is good for election reform efforts, and so correcting it here helps a good deal to reverse the damage.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

88. Taking off the Tin Foil Hats - Debunking Rumors

Southern Dem has written a thorough and well thought out
piece that addresses the "conspiracy" theories regarding
NC 08.

Time to Doff the Tin Foil Hats - No Suspicious Undervote in Meck/NC-08

Here is an excerpt:

Michael Collins Articles

The articles linked above written by Michael Collins are particularly disturbing. First, it appears that Mr. Collins is advocating that Mecklenburg County's tapes be used to prove that Sarasota County's machines are faulty. If the problem is in the programming and Sarasota's machines were faulty or tampered with, recounting the results in Mecklenburg County will not prove anything. He completely ignores the fact that the 3% eye-hand recount performed in Mecklenburg County resulted in zero added votes and did not indicate any problems with the machines.

There is a bigger problem with his article, however. Collins either intentionally uses an inflated undervote figure to make Mecklenburg County's undervote appear more sensational, or he has no idea how to figure the undervote from the iVotronics returns.

In stating that Mecklenburg County's undervote is greater than 15% he failed to exclude all paper absentee, curbside and provisional votes. Provisional votes naturally create a huge undervote since so many are discarded. Once those are removed the actual undervote of 4.2% is revealed. With the correct undervote total, Collins' entire argument is rendered moot.

Another reason to address this publicly is the spread of faulty data that is now getting wider distribution. A couple of days ago, Kirk Ross brought our attention to a writer who is spreading confusion by using a completely inaccurate undervote total for North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. Michael Collins has a post at Scoop Independent News, OpEdNews.com and it was taken to Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle. In this article Collins claims that the undervote percentage in the 8th Congressional race in Mecklenburg County was over 15%. I'll refute his numbers later in this post.

The most important reason to address this publicly is that there are valid complaints with election procedures and results in some states. Any time a false claim is made or a problem created where none exists, it dilutes the importance of other, more valid claims and takes attention and possibly resources away from where they are most needed....

Conclusion

There was no vast conspiracy in Mecklenburg County. There was no suspicious, aberrant, shocking or surprising undervote in Mecklenburg County. Voters were unhappy with the mess in Washington and it showed in the slightly inflated undervote. Republicans voted for down-ballot races, but withheld their votes from Robin Hayes. I only wish they had withheld about 330 more.

This is a long piece and if I've failed to clarify a point well enough, please feel free to ask questions. I am not an election returns expert. I am not a political scientist.
However, I do follow returns and fiddle around with numbers and I've been doing it for a good long while. I am in-tune enough with what happened in Mecklenburg to be able to take a step back and apply a little common sense to this situation. At least, I hope that's what I've done. I'm sure you will all let me know if I have failed.


full article here
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/18/111023/378

[Time for change]

95. Response to autorank, post # 85

First, I don't understand why you are responding to my post. You've blocked me from responding to any of your posts or threads, so that makes it a little difficult to have a conversation with you about this. My question wasn't addressed to you, it was addressed to WillYourVoteBCounted, who hasn't blocked me from responding to her. And, your post (reply to my post) mainly has to do with your decision to proceed with your thread announcing the fraud in NC-8 despite being warned that your analysis was based on inaccurate data -- but I wasn't the one who said you were warned about that -- that was WillYourVoteBCounted (though you've blocked her from responding to you also).

But since you have responded to my post, I do have some questions/comments for you:

1) Why have you blocked me from responding to any of your posts or threads?

2) You said in your OP on the NC-8 race "If the paper trail receipts are available and examined, they represent a smoking gun that validates the Florida case." Were you aware when you posted that that a hand recount had been begun for the race, and that Kissell conceded based on the results of that recount? I ask that because I had the distinct impression from reading your post that no recount had been conducted at all. I tried to ask you about that on your post, but I was blocked.

3) I agree with you that the BOEs in North Carolina appear to be at fault for posting inaccurate information on their web site. But at the same time, I don't believe that it serves any purpose for our cause to post an article on DU (and one that became very well publicized) that is totally wrong, regardless of whose fault it is that the data is inaccurate. If they post inaccurate data on their website, and you are aware of that, then that would have been an appropriate subject for your article. But when you post an analysis that makes very important claims based on incorrect data, or one based on data that you have good reason to believe is incorrect, that makes us all look bad and just gives ammunition to those who would try to paint us all as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists".

4) Everyone makes mistakes. One of the purposes of discussing these things on a discussion board is to give people the opportunity to identify flaws and point them out, so that we all have the opportunity to have access to better information. By blocking the responses of anyone who might question your analysis, you prevent us all from getting to see the full picture.

[Kelvin Mace]

103. My guess as to why you were banned

was because you questioned his conclusion.

This is SOP for some folks in the HCPB camp.

I always love it when an outsider writes stuff they knows nothing about, provides bogus numbers to back up their claim, then derides people for correcting him. It is especially fun to see them deride people who ACTUALLY know what is going on.

No DU members were blocked during the posting of this message

[Kurovski]

111. People are blocked due to unyielding rudeness and aggressive intimidation.

This entire thread is an example of why some individuals are blocked, and the behavior displayed is nothing new.

I read comments bemoaning what the effects of presumed inaccuracies on the part of activists will be on the election reform movement, all the while said activists are themselves tearing apart the movement with churlishness, arrogant intimidation, and self indulgent nastiness.

I've read all the facts and opinions--in the midst of the sludge--laid out by all parties. I know that Mecklenburg County has a perfectly filthy history when it comes to elections, including at least one admitted criminal in a bribery case involving a machine-voting company.

My conclusion upon examining all the facts is that FURTHER and thorough investigation is warranted and that the recount was prematurely aborted. There are still doubts. This includes the confusion or inaccuracies about undervotes. we are not certain that the Mecklenburg numbers can be trusted.

It's as simple as that.

Thank you, and please have a pleasant day if at all possible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. "presumed inaccuracies"

Here's a thought: if you don't actually care about the facts, don't pick fights with people who do.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

113. glad to hear that you will be working on that

So when someone asks another member to correct major errors in their
"reporting", they are being uncivil. Same goes for asking questions.

Its also uncivil to expect someone to provide accurate
information to the public.

:rofl:

As for Mecklenburg NC -

Gee, now where did I hear about Mecklenburg County's Election Director
back in the 90s?
Oh gee, and where is the residence of one of our SBOE Board Members?
And gee, could I possibly know anything at all
about the 100 counties in NC? Could it be at this www.ncvoter.net website?

Do a google search of bribery + mecklenburg county

The first two hits are sourced to my website

The Equal Justice Foundation credits my website, if you read through.
The second search is a direct hit to my website.

Text
Bribery Of A North Carolina Election DirectorBribery and kickbacks in Mecklenburg County. Top. After retiring in February after 28 years, former Mecklenburg County Elections Supervisor Bill Culp was ...
www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-50.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Bribery in NCGuilty Plea to Bribery charges for the Microvote Salesman - Ed O'Day. ... Mecklenburg County more than $6 million in voting machines since 1994. ...
www.ncvoter.net/briberyNC.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

If you want to investigate Mecklenburg County, please do.

Tons of resources have already been expended, as
well as possible remedies, but perhaps you can find something
that the Kissell supporters and people living in that county did
not find.

Meanwhile, folks can take a look and see if anything needs investigated
in their states:

http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp

I saw plenty wrong in the "show me" state.
Dont know what yours is, but sure you need some investigations
and recounts there.

NC 08 (and other contests) had recounts,
the candidate had manual recounts of 5 counties,
and gained 2 votes. IN spite of your skepticism, this contest
was closely examined, after all it was hotly contested.

SO - we can't wait to hear about the results
of your work.

I always respect people who actually do some of the hard lifting.

[Kurovski]

114. People are blocked due to unyielding rudeness and aggressive intimidation.

[salin]

115. I see that behavior on "both sides"

and find the "I block you - but respond directly to your posts, knowing that you can't respond" as fairly obnoxious behavior as well. Personally I think that if one uses the block feature, that one should also be automatically be blocked from responding to the blockee - that would prevent that particular obnoxious behavior.

I don't completely agree with one side or another. I don't claim to be an expert. I have learned a whole heck of a lot over the past year or so due to the "debates" even where 'obnoxious behavior' (from both sides) occurred. Why? Because a lot of information was brought into the discussions from various perspectives. One of the things I like about this forum, more than many DU forums, is that when there are "fights" both sides bring information/links/research into the discussion rather than go back and forth on 'positions' or sides simply with rhetoric. To the reader - this is very informative and lets us get much *more* information from which to draw our own conclusions. I am sad to see some of these discussions cut short.

[Kurovski]

116. You may take that up with the administrators, or check the

thread in yellow to see if that has not already been addressed.

I disagree that it is an obnoxious feature. However, it Certainly could become so if used to excess.

My guess is the option is open so that an individual will still be able to address an issue, particularly if they are being unfairly attacked. After all, the reason for a block is because of longterm anti-social behavior. Argue all you like about it, but that is what the feature is designed for.

I think it was carefully designed by the administration with consideration for the moderators.

Some things are years past the "discussion and disagreement" stage. Basic trust is gone for a number of individuals.

And I'm not talking about Obnoxiousness, I'm talking about years of unyielding rudeness and aggressive intimidation.

As for it going both ways--that is for each person to decide. The feature is there. Use it wisely, or don't use it at all. It may not even exist in a few months if it doesn't work out well.

Good to see you Salin. :hi:

[salin]

117. Note, I didn't say the feature was obnoxious, but the behavior

of 'blocking' a poster - and then posting directly to that poster - knowing that the poster can not respond. That seems like a bit of a nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya behavior (eg I can confront your post, but you can't respond ha ha!) I have already seen that behavior occur. If the feature is to work, than it has to prevent taunting (which is what I think the behavior I describe is). If I am willing to block someone (prevent them from speaking to my posts) than I should be willing to NOT post to that person. In very volatile situations in the past folks were put on forced ignore (igore each other - can't read/can't respond to) - seems that if one does the extreme measure of "block" they should also be willing to not post to that person. Being able to respond to someone - and NOT let them respond back... seems like an opening for bad behavior (or the aggressive bullying that you referred to earlier.)

I already stated why the give and take can, at times, lead to hostile posting - that I find that the give and take conversations (to the readers) are very beneficial - as a lot of info gets brought into the conversation.

Your words "use it wisely" are key. The behavior I object to is, at least in my opinion, not using it wisely. And sadly, for those using it in that way (blocking others, but then posting to those folks, knowing that they can not respond) is likely, over time, to discredit that poster to broader readers. Not because they are blocking other people (and anyone reading this forum should be able to understand why some - on either side of the divide - might be tempted to use the feature) - but because they "pick fights" that can not be fought (by posting directly to someone they have prevented from posting back.)

Easy enough for the feature to be "fixed". Make the "blocker" not be able to respond to posts/threads of the people they block (ala a "I agree that we just shouldn't interact") - and the aspect that I find obnoxious goes away.

[Kurovski]

118. People can indeed respond. there's not a thing in the world stopping them.

They have to post elsewhwere on the thread, but they can respond. It's happened here on this very thread.

So I guess it's not QUITE as obnoxious as you thought? Maybe slightly less? Still the same? :-)

[foo_bar]

119. that doesn't constitute a "response" in the context of a threaded discussion

We (non-blockers) are allowed to post responses to each other, but by definition we "cannot reply" to a person who only wants K&R, which works fine for the blocker because suckers are born every minute (as exemplified by Bev, TIA, or PT Barnum). While I can entertain the theory that folks like 'wank become self-marginalizing in this system (like * did, after only 6 years), the damage done by bad faith and cherry-picking in the interim seems hardly worth the experiment. By rewarding marginalizers and segregating the marginalized into "free speech bubbles" away from frail groupthink beliefs, the victor writes the internet history (as far as Googlebot is concerned), and the reality-based debate becomes a footnote. It balances out in the end, because websites that shortchange credibility for http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/">sensationalism and short-term traffic spikes tend to be "routed around", in the longer view, by users seeking reliable information.

[Kurovski]

120. That's all swell. And a person can indeed respond to a post in a thread

despite being on "block", unless of course the thread was STARTED by the person who blocked you.

Parsing words won't change that fact.

Thank you for your consideration and condescension. Thank you for calling hundreds of Duers "suckers". That's all very helpful on someone's planet I'm sure.

G'bye.:hi:

[foo_bar]

121. the phenomenon is hardly unique to DUers

Any system of governance that takes human nature into account will observe herd mentality (like Ben Franklin's fictional-apocryphal "two wolves and a sheep"); that's why our Constitution has checks and balances, and makes flavors du jour like flag burning amendments difficult to shove down everyone's throat (or should, with a semi-awake judiciary).

I don't think it's "parsing" to point out the link named "Cannot Reply" means in fact you cannot reply. You can reply to somebody else's post on the same thread, but that's a "response" in the way a "free speech zone" is a response.