Fairfield Co. Ohio recount -- lost opportunity

[jmknapp]

mtnester, a recount observer in Fairfield County Ohio yesterday, has reported in this forum that the Democratic observer and the Republican observer each picked a precinct for the 3% hand-count, Lancaster 2C and Pickerington C.

According to the official tally, there were 68,742 ballots cast in the county, 1,154 of which were in Lancaster 2C and 885 in Pickerington C.

(1154+885)/68742 = 2.97%

Close enough for government work?

Anyway, it's evident that the Democratic and Republican observers each picked one of the largest precincts in the county, so they could reach 3% with only two precincts. This limited their choices severely.

But what in the world is the Democratic Party and/or Kerry telling its observers? They seem to be without a clue. There are a several precincts in the county, in Violet Township, that show the unmistakeable signs of ballots being swapped between them. With all the attention on such ballot swaps, it's incomprehensible to me that the Democratic observer didn't pick one of these precincts.

pct votesCast Kerry Bush Badnarik Peroutka Disqualified
Violet-O 540 326 174 0 10 29
Violet-Q 807 505 270 2 0 23
Violet-R 473 241 156 29 43 0

It's interesting that the Fairfield Co. software, unlike Cuyahoga Co., does not automatically zero out the disqualified column, which is an excellent indicator of ballot shuffles between precincts. Since the ballot orders in general differ between precincts, candidates get mapped into each other, including sometimes into the normally impossible "Disqualified" column. This happened above in O and Q, with 52 disqualified votes between them. The particular mapping in Violet R evidently moved Bush and Kerry votes to Badnarik and Peroutka. Looks like general chaos at the Violet Twp polling location.

Recounting any of these precincts would have revealed the discrepancies and brought this ballot shuffle issue to the fore!

[RaulVB]

1. So...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY?

Not enough knowledgeable people on the field?

That would be pure stupidity!

[berniew1]

24. The ones picking the precincts aren't activists interested in vote accurac

They are picking the precincts to minimize problems and minimize hand counts that might make them look bad.
Conflicting motives.

[emlev]

30. Fairfield County machines defaulting to Bush?!

Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D. has just released his new study showing that ES&S machines in Mahoning County precincts were programmed to default to Bush. Fairfield County (and Mercer) also used ES&S machines. Trying to get this info to recount volunteers.

The study can be read at:
http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm

Also, Richard Hayes Phillips will be on Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio today discussing his findings.

[mtnester]

32. Fairfield County is punch card

not electronic

[berniew1]

34. Are you sure? I saw something that said it was touchscreen?

Where is the thread that has vote machine types?

[mtnester]

35. POSITIVE

I was a recount observer and a voter in that county

[bj2110]

2. What counties have not yet started recounting? Any?

This three precinct rule... where did it come from? It's a shit rule. How hard is it to "randomly" (I use quotes because who knows how they are actually picked) pick precincts where there were few irregularities, or ones that were known not to be tampered with?

We need to collect our suggestions for precincts to be recounted in counties that have not started. It couldn't hurt, even if they are selected "randomly."

[Stand and Fight]

15. 3% rule. Not precinct. n/t

[jhgatiss]

3. I heard on Stephanie Miller's show this morning...

that the precincts in Fairfield county that were recounted did show discrepencies. However, they shrugged them off as machine error and called off the recount there until the machines could be "fixed". They are just trying to avoid the cost and trouble of what should be a state mandated hand recount when the ballot numbers of the 3% hand recount don't jive with the machine totals. Anyone have a link on this story? That was the only place I had heard it so far.

[jmknapp]

4. the thing is...

With these mixed-up precincts (and there are more), there is no way that machine error could be appealed to. The issue described did sound like a machine error, with a lot of jams, and a different count coming up on two different runs.

[catgirl]

5. Were they different counts on the machine?

I read in an earlier thread that the machine counts didn't match the handcounts both times. The 2nd machine count was illegal either way.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. But wouldn't the recount have been that same as the hand count?

How would recounting these precincts have shown the actual voter intent?

[jmknapp]

7. If the ballots are identifiable as to the correct precinct

The mixup will be evident.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. But would that stand up in a court of law?

:shrug:

[jmknapp]

11. I don't see why not

If the ballots are marked by precinct, they can be run through the correct machine in the recount.

[trudyco]

13. Can you visualize this for me better?

I see in a multiprecinct location that someone will be directed to the wrong booth. It is a booth? And that is where the voterguide is, but it does identify the precinct # which a thoughtful person might verify with their ballot stamp? So a person not too sure of themselves or not checking would punch their card based on the order of the wrong precinct. This is a permanent mess up - a hand count would come up with the same thing.

But you are saying that they are directed to the correct booth with the correct voterguide but then they go somewhere else to deposit their ballot? And that somewhere else could be the pile for a different precinct? In which case a hand recount would fix this.

Another possibility would be that somebody purposely gave a false voter guide with the incorrect punch card order. Then they swapped the voter guide days later in the secrecy of the county building where the booths are kept. This, too, would not be caught in a hand recount unless the recounter or observer actually voted in that precinct and noticed the recount order was different from election day order (or the Glibs gave a list to everybody to verify).

So you think its option number 2, above? Why?

trudyco

[Ms. Toad]

19. Not exactly any of the above - but #1 is closest

Assuming the voter was given a regular ballot, rather than a provisional (I don't know how the provisional process worked):

Multiple precincts were housed in the same room - and should have been separated by space and monitored by different poll workers. The booths are not visibly identified by precinct. I also do not recall anything in the booth, or on the template, which identified the specific precinct (which most voters don't remember anyway). In one location, the booths for three precincts were apparently arranged in an unbroken horseshoe.

Each voter signed in at the correct precinct and was given a ballot for the correct precinct, marked for that precinct (Their votes would not be intermingled and tabulated with the rest unless they were on the roster at the precinct at which they signed in - so each was given the correct ballot). I believe the ballot is marked to be read electronically (as well as, one other poster has noted, by sight) so that the tabulator caretaker doesn't accidentally forget to set the machine for the correct precinct.

Based on conversations I have had, what happened next varies tremendously from polling place to polling place. In one polling place, the card was already in the voting template which was handed to the voter. In another voters were held back at the sign-in table until there was an empty booth which contained the template fastened to the booth, and each was directed to a specific booth. In another, voters were directed to line up behind the filled booths for that precinct and to take the next empty booth (with templates for that precinct). In Cuyahoga County, in some polling places, voters were either directed to a single line to wait for the next empty booth out of a clump of mixed precinct booths - or were individually directed to empty booths in a different precinct (with the template specific to the precinct to which the booth, not the voter, was assigned).

To vote you stick your card in the template (unless you were handed the card in the template). The template is like a book, with a list of candidate names at the left, with a central punch template in the "binding" area aligned with the holes in your inserted ballot. You vote by finding your candidate name on the template, and use the central punch template to punch the hole adjacent to your candidate in your card.

So - you were given a card for Precinct K when you signed in (which is programmed for Badnarik at the top of the ballot). You are directed to a voting booth set up for Precinct E - which has Kerry at the top of the race. You find Kerry on the top in your template, punch the hole adjacent Kerry (top punch). When the tabulator identifies your card as Precinct K it records your top of the card punch as a vote for Badnarik.

Unless the precincts had different local issues (liquor issues are the only ones I am aware of that divide on precinct lines), there is no way to determine that the card was voted using the wrong template - other than the statistically odd results.

To my knowledge, the misvoted cards were deposited in the correct ballot boxes. That might be an interesting question for audit purposes (signed in voters not matching number of ballots in the box), but I am relatively certain that the tabulation depends on the machine readable precinct ID on the ballot - not the box into which it was inserted.

There is no excuse for what happened. No pollworker should leave training without knowing that you cannot vote your ballot in a booth assigned to another precinct. Doing so is about as effective as taking your pencil and randomly punching holes in your ballot. Some of these workers, based on published reports, were even told by observers/challengers that they were not allowed to direct workers to other booths but continued to do so until midafternoon. (Which matches my experience on another matter in the precinct I worked - I was threatened with arrest if I did not comply with the precinct judge's incorrect assessment of the law - which went uncorrected until around 4 pm when the Board of Elections arrived.)

But - the reports that have been identified reflect incompetence, not fraud. To be a good means of stealing an election, the templates would need to leave the preferred winner in the same position (so the vote counted no matter which template was used). The templates rotate every candidate - so Bush votes as well as Kerry votes would have been misdirected by this maneuver (assuming #3). It would also require the cooperation of the pollworkers (who misdirected the voters), and knowledge that when challenged the pollworker would continue misdirecting voters, and that the Board of Elections would not appear for hours to correct the problem. It should be fixed - but it is just inexcusable bungling, not fraud.

Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any way to recover the votes for this election, absent revoting those precincts.

[jmknapp]

20. Ballot box shuffle

On whether ballots were put into the wrong boxes, there is this documented case:

precinct kerry bush badnarik peroutka

CLEVELAND-8G 232 20 51 1
CLEVELAND-8I 251 8 0 28

So Badnarik got an inordinate number of votes (51) in 8G and Peroutka likewise (28) in 8I.

The polling location in this case was Cory United Methodist Church, 1117 E. 105th St.

Now looking at the voteprotect.org EIRS case reports, there is an entry for Cory United Methodist:

"People from the H line were dropping ballots into the G Box because poll workers were moving people to a different line. Voter noticed mistake and alerted election inspector. Don't know what was done to correct it." (EIRS case #047393)

This strengthens my impression that the precinct is NOT machine-coded on the punchcards, and nothing prevents cards marked (visually) for one precinct being run through another precinct's counting machine.

All cards should be audited to make sure they were run through the correct machine.

[Ms. Toad]

23. Most of the Cuyahoga county instances

correlated with reports of pollworker incompetence - pollworkers who directed them to the voting booths.

I have also come across another explanation for an automated switch from one precinct to another - which makes sense based on the technology used - the use of a header card to separate precincts.

Assuming that scenario - ballots counted by physical location, rather than electronically readable mark - A manual audit might not help for a couple of reasons:

Voters whose cards were stamped for 8G, who voted in an 8I booth and deposited in an 8I box would have already been counted correctly. On a manual audit these would be reshuffled to 8G, and would now be incorrectly tallied since they were voted in an 8I booth.

Voters whose cards were stamped for 8G, who voted in an 8I booth, and inserted in an 8G box would be unchanged since they got back in the correct box

Voters whose cards were stamped for 8G who voted in an 8G booth, and inserted their cards in an 8I box (resulting in an incorrect count) would be reshuffled to be counted as an 8G .

The last (the only scenario resulting in increased accuracy) is the least likely of the scenarios to have occurred, since it requires the voter to have made two correct choices (correct sign in, correct booth) and then to mistakenly leave his/her voting area and insert the ballot in the box on another table.

The other factor involved in wandering voters was incompetent pollworkers - who would not likely have made that particular mistake, since the motivation reported for the pollworker misdirection was long lines (I suspect the scenario you quoted above actually involved misdirection to a booth - based on the reference to lines, and the voter reporting it was focusing on the precinct deposit box since Blackwell repeatedly insisted that voters must vote in the correct precinct. Given that state-wide emphasis I could imagine a voter unaware of ballot rotation (of which most voters are unaware) might report what seemed most critical to having the vote count - the ballot ending up in the wrong precinct box. I am not aware of any lines for turning in ballots - but the lines for voting booths were at times substantial.

There are also numerous reports of pollworkers directing voters to the wrong booths - in one instance from the time the polls opened until 4 pm. Those ballots may have landed in the stamped precinct box (resulting in an uncorrectable problem) or may have landed in the voted precinct box (resulting in a correct tabulation). Nothing will fix the former, and the latter would be now be counted incorrectly under your suggested manual audit.

So...reassigning the ballots to the box stamped on the box would likely result in increased miscounts of voter intent, rather than decreased.

In addition, I am not sure there is a way of manually auditing the ballots. One DU poster indicated that in the precinct s/he was observing the precinct was stamped on the back of the card. I do not recall than on my ballot (although I wasn't specifically looking for it). It may not be a universal practice - so it may not even be possible.

All in all a horrible mess.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. dupe

[fliesincircles]

12. They're identifiable alright.

I witnessed the Stark recount yesterday. EVERY ballot had a pricinct control number stamped on it. The ballots cast on election day also had the precinct name stamped on it, i.e. Canton City 4-C.

I know you've done some super work with the Cuyahoga numbers regarding vote shuffles. Maybe this will help you. In Stark, the presidential candidates always appeared in alphabetical order. 1)Badnarik, 2)*, 3)Kerry, 4)(Nader)listed as Candidate Removed, 5)Peroutka. So they would always be in that order, just different positions. Like 12345 or 23451 or 34512 or 45123 or 51234. This might help you figure out which candidate should have gotten the "large" third party votes.

[Lil]

8. DEM/GOP "reach 3% with only two precincts" WTF isn't anyone advising them?

Thanks for info. & all your awesome attention to OH, jmknapp. This is awful! grr

<<Anyway, it's evident that the Democratic and Republican observers each picked one of the largest precincts in the county, so they could reach 3% with only two precincts. This limited their choices severely. >>

Do you know if the DEM observers are getting any legal advice or other info. in order for them to understand the impact of their decisions? From what Carl Brennan said, it seems that Washington Governer's race had similar issues.

[kk897]

14. even before the recount, the counties were being

kind of a pain in the neck. During my Glib training, they were saying that each county had a different interpretation of the laws, each one would allow different things, that they wouuldn't let them know in advance what their requirements would be, etc. So it's probably not a matter of the Dems not telling people what to look for (or at least that's the case with the Glibs; I can't imagine the county people were any more cooperative with the Dem observers). And the precincts were supposed to be chosen at random, but most counties are not doing that.

I was supposed to go recount yesterday, but I got really sick, unfortunately. Haven't heard how my county went.

[Lil]

16. kick

[rfrrfrrfr]

17. We don't need two threads on this in the forum

Please see orginal thread on this topic below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=163172&mesg_id=163172

[jmknapp]

18. This thread is on a different issue

The failure of Democratic observers to display any evidence of a clue.

[woodsprite]

21. I didn't think it was an independent Dem Observer and Repub Observer, but

was a Dem and a Repub on their election board that chose the counties. At least that was what I understood from a post yesterday. I'm hunting for it now.

[lonestarnot]

22. Where were the big heads when this choosing was going on?

I think Kerry lawyer has already requested the key visual aid.

[Lil]

25. kick to the top

[dlaliberte]

26. Lots of lost opportunities

Here is another report from the recounting battlefield. (I am not the author of this report) It is not about Fairfield (it is about Hocking and Athens), but I cant post new threads yet, and I wanted to get this out.

I am Orren Whiddon, SE Ohio Regional Coordinator for the Greens.

We are doing good work and I have had some interesting developments in my area, notably the Hocking County avadavat regarding Triad voting machines. Because of this we now have good contacts with folks in Washington who support what we are doing and are in a position to help make things happen.
Most of my counties have been given a clean bill of health by our witnesses, even if they occasionally strayed from the letter of the Ohio recount statute. In these cases of cooperative and open BoEs, we plan to publicly praise the operation of the local BoE's. The credibility of our criticisms of poorly run BoE's will be increased by praising BoE's that are reasonably well run.

I have two counties where this is not the case. Willful failure to abide by the statute, poll books in disarray, refusal to grant access to materials specified in the statutes. Ballots marked up without a bipartisan team present. In these counties our witnesses are preparing avadavat of their experience. The folks in Washington are waiting to review them.

Items of interest are:
* Examples of BoE officials <get their names claiming that they have been directed to make an interpretation of procedure by the SoS>, when that interpretation plainly violates the plain English reading of the statute.
For instance: the failure to randomly select the precincts for the 3% sample. <My Athens County BoE cut paper slips, put them in a can and drew out the sample. That’s random!
Failure to grant access to records plainly specified in the statutes.
Missing records and logs.

I am offering to act as a clearinghouse for affidavits and will see to it that they will go where they will do the most good.

Your statement should be concise and factual, and give time and names when possible. Your handwritten notes should back up your statements if possible. Begin with a very short statement of your name and your political affiliation, if any.

Thanks
Orren Whiddon

SE Ohio Regional Green

[Lil]

27. Lots of lost opportunities in Hocking and Athens

dlaliberte, Thanks for the info. If you want to you can edit your subject line to say:
Lots of lost opportunities in Hocking and Athens

I will change my message and subject then, :-)
Welcome!!

[dlaliberte]

29. can't edit now

The editing period expired now, so I can't change the previous subject.
But good idea. And thanks for the welcome.

[GetTheRightVote]

28. I assisted in the Allen County Recount, playing us for fools it seems

They are only counting the precincts they have choosen rather then a random sample, they have it all figured out in the counties of Ohio, they are sand bagging us all with the set ups that they are controlling. I helped in the recount of Ohio and they only let us look at the precincts that they choose to let us research, they did not do a random selection as they were suppose to, nor did they let us look at the polling books, absentees and provisional ballots which would have helped us with verifing totals recorded by the counties. The Director where I assisted told us in fact that he did not want to use to many machines in the recount and wanted the closes precincts that would total to the 3% needed for the recount. This was a little fishy but along with this the poll workers who were helping in the recount effort did not seem to know how to take care of any problems concerning the scanners. After working the polls on election day you would think that they would be more then a little effienct with the machines but they were not. In fact, they complained about having to even do the recount and acted like it was a total waste of time and effort not that this was a Democracy at work. In fact they were upset to the point that they kept asking if this was the last time they would have to do any recounting since it was such a waste of time and effort, a very negative additude towards a recount for sure. The Deputy Director had to keep coming over to fix the machines for them, now how would this work during election day ??

The Director and Board also told us that if the voter did not vote in two federal electons sequencely that the voter would be dropped off of the registion list. This I found to be very disheartening but along with this issue I also saw overvotes where a voter had mark a candidate but then also wrote in the same candidate but this vote was not counted even though it was obvious to all who they were voting for, it was Bush, boo, but still it was an uncounted vote. We were told that there were not many of these kinds of votes and not to worry about them anyway, I was upset at the casual way these votes were dismissed by this board. I told them perhaps I was a little extreme but if a vote was obvious why not count it, and they had no answer for me but because the machine could not read it, how many other obvious votes were not counted because a machine could not count it ?? How many voters could not vote though they had not moved because they did not vote in the last two federal elections ?? Are these not examples of voter disenfranhisement ?? After my experiences these last few weeks, I am aware I do not live in a Democracy but a dictatorship of the many officials who run these elections for us right up to the top of the Republican party because they make up the rules. Are we going to allow this to continue and put flowers on the bed of Democracy's grave or fight to bring her up from the dead ??? I hope it is as obvious to you as it has become to me that our elections are manipulated by these self serving individuals.

Finally, I had forgotten my purse and I had to drive back to get it. When I went into the
Room where we had done all the counting of the ballets it all looked like it did when I left with one new piece. The tapes from the scanner were sitting on the top of the table under which my purse laid. I looked around and there were no election officials to be seen. I could have picked them both up and walked right out of the room with them. Just how secure is that for you, election tape for recount out in the open for all to obtain, hmmmmm. Oh well as they would say, just another day in the neighbor.

I am one deeply concerned American Citizen.

[Igel]

31. I was surprised at the following:

"The Director and Board also told us that if the voter did not vote in two federal electons sequencely that the voter would be dropped off of the registion list. This I found to be very disheartening..."

I thought that was unreasonable and a local interpretation.

But I checked:

Ohio Revised statute 3503.21. ...
(A) The registration of a registered elector shall be canceled upon the occurrence of any of the following:
...
(6) The failure of the registered elector, after he has been mailed a confirmation notice, to do either of the following:
(a) Respond to such a notice and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections;
(b) Update his registration and vote at least once during a period of four consecutive years, which period shall include two general federal elections."

Not sure what a "confirmation notice" is.

[lonestarnot]

33. We all have different opinions, I'm not sure which is correct and don't

know the strategy, so just have to wait and see. Any county that they recount and doesn't show a significant deviation from the original count is a demonstration of we got to it before you recounted to me at this point anyway.