Voting Early (on Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Charnin
Feb 5, 2012, 10:05:14 AM2/5/12
to Election Integrity
Voting Early (on Paper Ballots) vs. Election Day (Machines)
This analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states which voted
early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots in 2008. Approximately
30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-
shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-
person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit
polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states
where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.
In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift)
are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot
voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election
Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would
intuitively expect.
The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average
2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average
6.8% red-shift.
For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-
delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,
1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=26
This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail
or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift
decreases. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=28
Note that in the above chart, the three points at the extreme right
represent CO, WA, OR.
Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7%
of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.).
Therefore 63% were cast on Election Day which were a combination of
DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since approximately
30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on DREs, it follows that nearly
50% of votes cast on Election Day were on unverifiable DREs. No wonder
the discrepancies were concentrated on Election Day voting.
Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper
ballot) votes? How does the Democratic late vote share compare to the
overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since the late votes were
cast on paper ballots, the Democrats did much better.
Proof: there were 121 million votes cast on or before Election Day.
Obama had 52.4%, But he had 59.2% of the 10 million late recorded
votes. So here is the takeaway: Don’t vote ON Election Day (voting
machines). Vote on PAPER BALLOTS- EARLY (mail or hand-delivered), or
LATE (absentee or provisional).
http://richardcharnin.com/2008LateVotes.htm
And for those who question voting by mail or hand-delivered ballots,
check out Oregon. It installed a vote-by-mail system in 1998. With
proper controls (namely, a mandated hand-count of randomly selected
counties and other safeguards), Oregon stands alone, based on various
statistical measures of accuracy, among the battleground states.
Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just
coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates
had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-oregon-voting-system-statistical-evidence-that-it-works/
This analysis compares exit poll discrepancies in states which voted
early by mail or hand-delivered paper ballots in 2008. Approximately
30% of the 131 million total votes were cast early. The exit poll red-
shift to the GOP is negatively (-0.50) correlated to early mail or in-
person voting (paper ballot). In other words, the unadjusted exit
polls are a closer match to the recorded vote in early-voting states
where, presumably, election fraud is minimal.
In general, exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote (red-shift)
are lower in states with a high percentage of early paper ballot
voting. Conversely, states that utilize unverifiable DREs on Election
Day have much higher exit poll discrepancies – as one would
intuitively expect.
The 15 states with the highest early voting turnout had an average
2.3% red-shift. The 15 with the lowest early turnout had an average
6.8% red-shift.
For example, the states with the highest percentage of early/hand-
delivered paper ballots had tiny red-shifts (Pct,R/S): OR (100%,
1.75%), WA (89%,0.54%) and CO (79%, -1.8%).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=26
This scatter-chart shows that as the percentage of early (Vote-by-mail
or hand-delivered) paper-ballots increase, the exit poll red-shift
decreases. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=28
Note that in the above chart, the three points at the extreme right
represent CO, WA, OR.
Approximately 30% of votes cast were mailed or hand-delivered and 7%
of paper ballots were recorded late (absentee, provisional, etc.).
Therefore 63% were cast on Election Day which were a combination of
DREs, Optical scanners and punch card machines. Since approximately
30% of total votes cast in 2008 were on DREs, it follows that nearly
50% of votes cast on Election Day were on unverifiable DREs. No wonder
the discrepancies were concentrated on Election Day voting.
Now what about the votes recorded AFTER Election Day – the Late (paper
ballot) votes? How does the Democratic late vote share compare to the
overall recorded vote? Not surprisingly, since the late votes were
cast on paper ballots, the Democrats did much better.
Proof: there were 121 million votes cast on or before Election Day.
Obama had 52.4%, But he had 59.2% of the 10 million late recorded
votes. So here is the takeaway: Don’t vote ON Election Day (voting
machines). Vote on PAPER BALLOTS- EARLY (mail or hand-delivered), or
LATE (absentee or provisional).
http://richardcharnin.com/2008LateVotes.htm
And for those who question voting by mail or hand-delivered ballots,
check out Oregon. It installed a vote-by-mail system in 1998. With
proper controls (namely, a mandated hand-count of randomly selected
counties and other safeguards), Oregon stands alone, based on various
statistical measures of accuracy, among the battleground states.
Washington and Colorado have recently followed suit. Is it just
coincidental that the three states with the highest early voting rates
had the lowest exit poll discrepancies?
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/the-oregon-voting-system-statistical-evidence-that-it-works/
Ron Baiman
Jun 10, 2012, 12:55:49 PM6/10/12
to Election Integrity
Steve, Jonathan, Josh, anyone?
Did anyone on this list, by chance capture the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll results that were reportedly split at 50%, I think at around 9:00 PM, an hour after polls close. A request has been made for documentation of this (reportedly) last and more or less complete (unadjusted) exit poll results.
If this is true, as my source has pointed out, the "error" would appear to be far outside any reasonable margin of error (even with a large cluster factor). Also, I think (interestingly) outside the 3% margin (from what I remember) where the losing candidate can request an automatic recount.
Obviously, this election was much closer than it should have - and there are major strategic and political issues that need to be grappled with even if the 50% split had prevailed, but the question remains whether this is another example of massive and unexplained "red shift" in (mostly op scan according to my information) but machine counted election results. Note that the documented miscounting in southwestern Ohio in 2004 was also on Op Scan equipment.
Ron
Did anyone on this list, by chance capture the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll results that were reportedly split at 50%, I think at around 9:00 PM, an hour after polls close. A request has been made for documentation of this (reportedly) last and more or less complete (unadjusted) exit poll results.
If this is true, as my source has pointed out, the "error" would appear to be far outside any reasonable margin of error (even with a large cluster factor). Also, I think (interestingly) outside the 3% margin (from what I remember) where the losing candidate can request an automatic recount.
Obviously, this election was much closer than it should have - and there are major strategic and political issues that need to be grappled with even if the 50% split had prevailed, but the question remains whether this is another example of massive and unexplained "red shift" in (mostly op scan according to my information) but machine counted election results. Note that the documented miscounting in southwestern Ohio in 2004 was also on Op Scan equipment.
Ron
Herb Engstrom
Jun 10, 2012, 7:43:56 PM6/10/12
to Election...@googlegroups.com
Terry Christensen, recently retired Professor of Political Science
at San José State University, was asked about this discrepancy. He
thinks the exit polls are wrong because of the anti-government
sentiments of the Tea Party types, who might refuse to cooperate
even with poll takers. Do we have any information on the number of
people who refused to answer the poll questions? Might these
account for the discrepancy?
Herb Engstrom
Herb Engstrom
--
To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the "Posting Guidelines" page.
Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
If you're not a member and would like to join, go to http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join" link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my membership" link.
Ron Baiman
Jun 10, 2012, 7:54:38 PM6/10/12
to he...@hengstrom.net, Election...@googlegroups.com
Hi Herb,
This is an old canard that we thoroughly debunked in 2004 - see: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=uscountvotes%20on%202004%20exit%20polls&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.51capitalmarch.com%2Fdownloads%2FUSCountVotes_Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky_Full_Analysis.pdf&ei=YDPVT_29A8Ho2QXZjfGNCw&usg=AFQjCNHKFb0ZMYBRrEHPs4u9Q73Sk5A60A&cad=rja>
I don't think this hypothesis would hold up under serious analysis this time either.
Best,
Ron
This is an old canard that we thoroughly debunked in 2004 - see: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=uscountvotes%20on%202004%20exit%20polls&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.51capitalmarch.com%2Fdownloads%2FUSCountVotes_Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky_Full_Analysis.pdf&ei=YDPVT_29A8Ho2QXZjfGNCw&usg=AFQjCNHKFb0ZMYBRrEHPs4u9Q73Sk5A60A&cad=rja>
I don't think this hypothesis would hold up under serious analysis this time either.
Best,
Ron
From: Herb Engstrom <he...@hengstrom.net>
To: Election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, June 10, 2012 6:46:13 PM
Subject: Re: [ei] Screen print of unadjusted Wisconsin Exit Poll?
Paul F Velleman
Jun 10, 2012, 10:06:47 PM6/10/12
to <herb@hengstrom.net>, <ElectionIntegrity@googlegroups.com>
There's no evidence at all of a systematic attempt to skew the exit polls.
Until about 8 years ago, exit polls were extraordinarily accurate.
Now there seems to be a consistent "red shift" in the vote.
And it is worst where votes are recorded only electronically.
Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
Ron Baiman
Jun 10, 2012, 11:00:51 PM6/10/12
to he...@hengstrom.net, Election...@googlegroups.com
This is a better link: http://www.51capitalmarch.com/downloads/USCountVotes_Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky_Full_Analysis.pdf
From: Ron Baiman <bai...@sbcglobal.net>
To: he...@hengstrom.net; Election...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, June 10, 2012 6:54:38 PM
Josh Mitteldorf
Jun 11, 2012, 9:16:58 AM6/11/12
to Paul F Velleman, Election...@googlegroups.com
Paul - This could be a crucial detail.� Do you have a reference?Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor�
Thanks.
� - Josh
--
Cold fusion is real, and is about to change our future.
Cold fusion is real, and is about to change our future.
Grant W. Petty
Jun 11, 2012, 11:03:29 AM6/11/12
to Paul F Velleman, Election...@googlegroups.com
Yes, if this in fact occurred "at the invitation of the Governor," then this news flew completely under the radar even for folks in WI paying close attention (e..g., Command Central issue earlier this year). Please supply details and a source. Is it possible this is just a rumor that evolved out of the CC thing?
Grant
Grant
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Josh Mitteldorf <jo...@mathforum.org> wrote:
Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
Thanks.
- Josh
--
Cold fusion is real, and is about to change our future.
--
Paul F Velleman
Jun 11, 2012, 11:11:55 AM6/11/12
to Josh Mitteldorf, <ElectionIntegrity@googlegroups.com>
Here's the reference I have:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/06/emergency-—-please-read-—-serious-wisconsin-vote-hack-issue
On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
Thanks.
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 11, 2012, 11:19:47 AM6/11/12
to jo...@mathforum.org, pf...@cornell.edu, Election...@googlegroups.com
I'm going to check with John Washburn--Jon
In a message dated 6/11/2012 10:30:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jo...@mathforum.org writes:
Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
Thanks.
- Josh
--
Cold fusion is real, and is about to change our future.
--
Paul F Velleman
Jun 11, 2012, 1:28:12 PM6/11/12
to Josh Mitteldorf, Election...@googlegroups.com
Josh (and all)
here's a pdf of the full thread.
On Jun 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
Hi, Paul-
I'm a member at Thom's radio show, but when I paste in the link below I get a message that says I'm not authorized to read this page. Can you cut and paste it into a reply message (and perhaps send to the rest of EI as well)?
Thanks
-Josh
Victoria Collier
Jun 11, 2012, 3:08:23 PM6/11/12
to Paul F Velleman, Josh Mitteldorf, Election...@googlegroups.com
I may be missing it but I don't see reference to an invitation from
the Governor. This is the Command Central scandal that came to light
beginning last year.
Sadly, most of the efforts to educate and organize around the issue of
the machines and the need to count every ballot fell to the wayside in
WI as people focused on just getting the recall to happen, getting the
signatures, etc. This article didn't start making the rounds until
after the recall. Too late, too late. Waiting until after the fact to
raise awareness of stolen elections is what we always do, and it never
gets us anywhere but one more stolen election closer to fascism.
On 6/11/12, Paul F Velleman <pf...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Josh (and all)
> here's a pdf of the full thread.
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
>
> Hi, Paul-
> I'm a member at Thom's radio show, but when I paste in the link below I
> get a message that says I'm not authorized to read this page. Can you cut
> and paste it into a reply message (and perhaps send to the rest of EI as
> well)?
> Thanks
> -Josh
>
> On 6/11/2012 11:11 AM, Paul F Velleman wrote:
> Here's the reference I have:
>
> http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/06/emergency-—-please-read-—-serious-wisconsin-vote-hack-issue
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
>
>
> Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with
> electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
>
> Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?
> Thanks.
> - Josh
>
>
> --
> Cold fusion<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n> is real, and is
Editor: www.VoteScam.org
the Governor. This is the Command Central scandal that came to light
beginning last year.
Sadly, most of the efforts to educate and organize around the issue of
the machines and the need to count every ballot fell to the wayside in
WI as people focused on just getting the recall to happen, getting the
signatures, etc. This article didn't start making the rounds until
after the recall. Too late, too late. Waiting until after the fact to
raise awareness of stolen elections is what we always do, and it never
gets us anywhere but one more stolen election closer to fascism.
On 6/11/12, Paul F Velleman <pf...@cornell.edu> wrote:
> Josh (and all)
> here's a pdf of the full thread.
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
>
> Hi, Paul-
> I'm a member at Thom's radio show, but when I paste in the link below I
> get a message that says I'm not authorized to read this page. Can you cut
> and paste it into a reply message (and perhaps send to the rest of EI as
> well)?
> Thanks
> -Josh
>
> On 6/11/2012 11:11 AM, Paul F Velleman wrote:
> Here's the reference I have:
>
> http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/06/emergency-—-please-read-—-serious-wisconsin-vote-hack-issue
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Josh Mitteldorf wrote:
>
>
> Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with
> electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
>
> Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?
> Thanks.
> - Josh
>
>
> --
> about to change our future.
>
>
>
> --
> Cold fusion<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n> is real, and is
>
>
>
> --
> about to change our future.
>
> --
>
> --
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the
> "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join"
> link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my
> membership" link.
--
Victoria Collier
> "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join"
> link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my
> membership" link.
--
Editor: www.VoteScam.org
Mike LaBonte
Jun 11, 2012, 2:15:12 PM6/11/12
to Election...@googlegroups.com
One way to check on this is to find out if the number of OpTech precincts has decreased.
If it's true that two DREs were exchanged for each OpTech, that would amount to a form of disenfranchisement in most precincts. For example, replacing one ballot scanner and 10 booths in a precinct would take more than 10 DREs to get the same voter throughput. Having only two DREs will result in absurdly long lines.
Mike
If it's true that two DREs were exchanged for each OpTech, that would amount to a form of disenfranchisement in most precincts. For example, replacing one ballot scanner and 10 booths in a precinct would take more than 10 DREs to get the same voter throughput. Having only two DREs will result in absurdly long lines.
Mike
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 11, 2012, 4:25:34 PM6/11/12
to jo...@mathforum.org, pf...@cornell.edu, Election...@googlegroups.com
This in answer from John Washburn (as savvy re. WI as anyone):
1) the swapped in DRE's have the VeriVote Printer to make a VVPAT
(Voter
Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). VVPAT is required by state law; 5.91(18)
2) I do not have a complete list of any of the following:
a) the number of municipalities offered the swap
b) the number of municipalities which accepted the swap
Kevin Kratz has identified municipalities in both Barron and Oconot county
which have accepted the swap, but his research is on going and not yet
complete.
3) Yes, the offer originated from Command Central reaching out to the
muncipal clerks who are CC customers.
4) the offer does not seem to have originated from anyone other than CC nor
do I expect anyone else (but the open records research is still ongoing)
5) No, there is not reocrds which indicate any connection between the swap
program and the Walker Administration.
6) Yes, the equipment list is out of date. My explanation is the GAB staff
does not see this as an urgent task. It is fishy, true,but I try not to
ascribe to consiracy what stupidity and self-interest will cover. So, for
now I will speculate tha simple answer self-interested sloth is most likely
the correct answer.
Verifiable Paper Audit Trail). VVPAT is required by state law; 5.91(18)
2) I do not have a complete list of any of the following:
a) the number of municipalities offered the swap
b) the number of municipalities which accepted the swap
Kevin Kratz has identified municipalities in both Barron and Oconot county
which have accepted the swap, but his research is on going and not yet
complete.
3) Yes, the offer originated from Command Central reaching out to the
muncipal clerks who are CC customers.
4) the offer does not seem to have originated from anyone other than CC nor
do I expect anyone else (but the open records research is still ongoing)
5) No, there is not reocrds which indicate any connection between the swap
program and the Walker Administration.
6) Yes, the equipment list is out of date. My explanation is the GAB staff
does not see this as an urgent task. It is fishy, true,but I try not to
ascribe to consiracy what stupidity and self-interest will cover. So, for
now I will speculate tha simple answer self-interested sloth is most likely
the correct answer.
In a message dated 6/11/2012 10:30:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
jo...@mathforum.org writes:
Paul - This could be a crucial detail. Do you have a reference?Apparently, the voting machines in Wisc. were recently replaced with electronic ones at the invitation of the Governor…
Thanks.
- Josh
----
Cold fusion is real, and is about to change our future.
Poke...@aol.com
Jun 11, 2012, 11:16:22 PM6/11/12
to Election...@googlegroups.com
Well, it's sort of a Catch 22.
The media won't pay any attention except in the hours immediately before
and after an election, if then.
People won't pay attention to election machinery, either, much, unless
there's one just about to happen. It's too late, then.
Even for a civically-minded person in general, it's whack-a-mole with other
concerns year round. Activism by triage.
A difficult nut to crack.
Pokey Anderson
voternm
Jun 12, 2012, 12:57:58 PM6/12/12
to Election...@googlegroups.com
So much for AUDITS after the fact and irregularities that pop up. Software driven elections are the problem.
We obfuscate the issue with these detail arguments, although they are constructive in dissecting technical issues with DRE's that should NEVER be used, or exit polls that are "adjusted" after the election to fit the results...
Simple reconstruction of the election system to NOT ALLOW any software driven device to be used in casting or counting ballots marked by hand and counted on a precinct level with digital recording of each ballot to check their work is the answer. Any voter could then check the count from digital records or witness the actual counting. When people are removed from the process and can not witness what software does, then our Constitutional Right to control our government through elections has shifted to software control. Trust U.S. elections using GOP corporations to canvas the vote and determine the election result is not democracy and bush&co. become a metaphor for "It does not matter how the people vote, but who counts the votes" J. Stalin. Walker's DRE's are only a helpful Stalinist tool. The real tool is scanners and central tabulators that look OK to the critical thought challenged who think audits or poll tapes are good enough checks, but these software based systems are easily hacked, programmed with terminal resident programs on memory chips or BIOS chips. Software is the key to democracy: don't use software in election systems at all.
Casey Reed
-------------------------------
We obfuscate the issue with these detail arguments, although they are constructive in dissecting technical issues with DRE's that should NEVER be used, or exit polls that are "adjusted" after the election to fit the results...
Simple reconstruction of the election system to NOT ALLOW any software driven device to be used in casting or counting ballots marked by hand and counted on a precinct level with digital recording of each ballot to check their work is the answer. Any voter could then check the count from digital records or witness the actual counting. When people are removed from the process and can not witness what software does, then our Constitutional Right to control our government through elections has shifted to software control. Trust U.S. elections using GOP corporations to canvas the vote and determine the election result is not democracy and bush&co. become a metaphor for "It does not matter how the people vote, but who counts the votes" J. Stalin. Walker's DRE's are only a helpful Stalinist tool. The real tool is scanners and central tabulators that look OK to the critical thought challenged who think audits or poll tapes are good enough checks, but these software based systems are easily hacked, programmed with terminal resident programs on memory chips or BIOS chips. Software is the key to democracy: don't use software in election systems at all.
Casey Reed
-------------------------------
Victoria Collier
Jun 12, 2012, 10:05:37 AM6/12/12
to Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
VeriVote printers -- so the receipt is now considered a ballot? And
how does the VeriVote work? Does the voter take a copy, does a copy
stay with the machine, is the paper thin as tissue paper and no one
can read it, does it crumple and jam up?
how does the VeriVote work? Does the voter take a copy, does a copy
stay with the machine, is the paper thin as tissue paper and no one
can read it, does it crumple and jam up?
> --
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the
> "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join"
> link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my
> membership" link.
> To post, send email to Election...@googlegroups.com. Please review the
> "Posting Guidelines" page.
>
> Please forward EI messages widely and invite members to join the group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity/members_invite.
>
> If you're not a member and would like to join, go to
> http://groups.google.com/group/ElectionIntegrity and click on the "join"
> link at right. For delivery and suspension options, use the "Edit my
> membership" link.
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 12, 2012, 5:54:22 PM6/12/12
to earthwo...@gmail.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
In a message dated 6/12/2012 5:15:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
earthwo...@gmail.com writes:
VeriVote printers -- so the receipt is now considered a ballot? And
how does the VeriVote work? Does the voter take a copy, does a copy
stay with the machine, is the paper thin as tissue paper and no one
can read it, does it crumple and jam up?
In any case, how does that "copy" verify
anything other than what is printed on that copy? It doesn't have
to match even the individual vote recorded locally on that machine, let
alone what happens to that vote in the pipeline, let alone what happens to all
the other votes, real or fictitious, in the pipeline.
The only way you'd even get a local
reconciliation/verification would be if everyone who voted on that
machine assembles after the polls close and count together every one of
their "receipts" and match it against the machine total. #1 That ain't ever
going to happen. #2 If it did, it's what's quaintly known as Hand Counted
Paper Fucking Ballots. #3 You'd still have to reconcile all the way up the
tabulation tree, through the central tabulators and/or AP "results" postings,
and that would be after the voters gathered with their receipts at
every precinct in the jurisdiction.
We've gone over this a zillion times and I think we all
understand it; is the VVPT crowd really that stupid?--J
Victoria Collier
Jun 12, 2012, 6:08:58 PM6/12/12
to Verified...@aol.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
It doesn't have to match even the individual vote recorded locally on
that machine??
Wait, huh? What the hell is it then? What does it show? Sorry, I
clearly don't know what the hell a VeriVote printer actually does. I
didn't think it was just another poll tape receipt, doesn't it have to
show at least the record of the vote -- with everything else you wrote
still being totally accurate, btw.
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 12, 2012, 6:55:54 PM6/12/12
to earthwo...@gmail.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
In a message dated 6/12/2012 6:49:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
earthwo...@gmail.com writes:
Well how ARE they going to have a recount if Lehman is challenged on Friday?
Yes, good point. And it makes sense that the "receipt" drops into a box
because if the voter took it away it would permit vote-selling and violate that
aspect of the secret ballot. So I sit corrected (I think). I guess if the
"receipts" are carefully checked by the voters (I remember reading that only a
small portion actually checked carefully enough to detect errors), all are
gather in the box, aren't substituted out, and then the idividual machine totals
are reconcile up the tree to the aggregate result, you'd have a reasonable check
on the machines. I feel so much better now. Really.--J
My whole understanding of VVPAT is that it could function as HCPB, but
my position from the beginning was that it would NOT do so under the
Holt Bill because "random audits" is not HCPB and gives a false sense
of security to people who don't understand the problems.
I guess we all need to know what the hell is really going on.
On 6/12/12, Verified...@aol.com <Verified...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 6/12/2012 6:32:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> earthwo...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> Ok, yes, but I assumed there was a printed precinct copy that was held
> for recount, otherwise the whole VVPAT is more ridiculous than I
> originally thought. I figured it was held like a ballot for recount
> and could -- in what you accurately describe as a Hand Counted Paper
> Fucking Ballots -- be counted together, thereby actually providing a
> true audit (if the paper itself was not tampered with). I'd like to
> know if I'm assuming incorrectly.
> I think you're assuming incorrectly, but I would also like to know for sure
>
> (I'll run it by Washburn). If you are assuming correctly then you would
> have instituted HCPB at least at the local phase of counting and there's no
>
> way that's what Command Central was gunning for in the OS-DRE exchange.--J
>
>
>
> On 6/12/12, Verified...@aol.com <Verified...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 6/12/2012 6:08:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> earthwo...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> It doesn't have to match even the individual vote recorded locally on
>> that machine??
>>
>> Wait, huh? What the hell is it then? What does it show? Sorry, I
>> clearly don't know what the hell a VeriVote printer actually does. I
>> didn't think it was just another poll tape receipt, doesn't it have to
>> show at least the record of the vote -- with everything else you wrote
>> still being totally accurate, btw.
>>
>> Well I could be out of my depth and wrong on this, but the voter looks
>> at
>> something on paper right? Well how is he/she supposed to check whether
> the
>> inner memory of the DRE registered the same vote(s)? I mean it's
> trivial to
>>
>> write code into the program that says "Print X but Record Y in
>> memory."
>> No?--j
Victoria Collier
Editor: www.VoteScam.org
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 12, 2012, 6:40:45 PM6/12/12
to earthwo...@gmail.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
Verified...@aol.com
Jun 12, 2012, 6:20:03 PM6/12/12
to earthwo...@gmail.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
Victoria Collier
Jun 12, 2012, 6:32:30 PM6/12/12
to Verified...@aol.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
Ok, yes, but I assumed there was a printed precinct copy that was held
for recount, otherwise the whole VVPAT is more ridiculous than I
originally thought. I figured it was held like a ballot for recount
and could -- in what you accurately describe as a Hand Counted Paper
Fucking Ballots -- be counted together, thereby actually providing a
true audit (if the paper itself was not tampered with). I'd like to
know if I'm assuming incorrectly.
for recount, otherwise the whole VVPAT is more ridiculous than I
originally thought. I figured it was held like a ballot for recount
and could -- in what you accurately describe as a Hand Counted Paper
Fucking Ballots -- be counted together, thereby actually providing a
true audit (if the paper itself was not tampered with). I'd like to
know if I'm assuming incorrectly.
Victoria Collier
Jun 12, 2012, 6:49:56 PM6/12/12
to Verified...@aol.com, Poke...@aol.com, Election...@googlegroups.com
Well how ARE they going to have a recount if Lehman is challenged on Friday?
My whole understanding of VVPAT is that it could function as HCPB, but
my position from the beginning was that it would NOT do so under the
Holt Bill because "random audits" is not HCPB and gives a false sense
of security to people who don't understand the problems.
I guess we all need to know what the hell is really going on.
my position from the beginning was that it would NOT do so under the
Holt Bill because "random audits" is not HCPB and gives a false sense
of security to people who don't understand the problems.
I guess we all need to know what the hell is really going on.
Mike LaBonte
Jun 12, 2012, 6:29:04 PM6/12/12
to ElectionIntegrity
All good reasons why VVPT is useless. But as for how they came to be accepted, the reasons are different for officials and the public.
As we know the public are mostly uninformed about this, and the fact that EI people ask for "paper" and VVPT has "paper" in the name is close enough for many to believe the need has been satisfied.
Officials want to keep their jobs and therefore must provide acceptable service, but convenience and working with the resources allotted them really matters. Paper tapes are cheaper than ballots, take less space to store, and are easier to transport. The fact that they are nearly useless for verifying vote counts is not very important, as "everyone" knows they will most likely never be seen again once locked away. Access to cast ballots of any kind is nearly nil in most jurisdictions, and where DREs are used, an audit or recount usually consists of plugging the memory cards in again.
In Japan a phoenetic alphabet called Katakana is used to write out the names of people for which there is no Kanji representation. When my name was written in Katakana it looked like Japanese to me, but it looked foreign to anyone in Japan. Likewise, VVPT looks like paper voting to the masses but it doesn't look anything like a vote record to those of us who speak election integrity.
Mike
As we know the public are mostly uninformed about this, and the fact that EI people ask for "paper" and VVPT has "paper" in the name is close enough for many to believe the need has been satisfied.
Officials want to keep their jobs and therefore must provide acceptable service, but convenience and working with the resources allotted them really matters. Paper tapes are cheaper than ballots, take less space to store, and are easier to transport. The fact that they are nearly useless for verifying vote counts is not very important, as "everyone" knows they will most likely never be seen again once locked away. Access to cast ballots of any kind is nearly nil in most jurisdictions, and where DREs are used, an audit or recount usually consists of plugging the memory cards in again.
In Japan a phoenetic alphabet called Katakana is used to write out the names of people for which there is no Kanji representation. When my name was written in Katakana it looked like Japanese to me, but it looked foreign to anyone in Japan. Likewise, VVPT looks like paper voting to the masses but it doesn't look anything like a vote record to those of us who speak election integrity.
Mike
Ron Baiman
Jun 13, 2012, 2:16:11 PM6/13/12
to Election Integrity
For a sample size of 2,457, I'm getting about a 1 in 10,000 (.01%)
chance that Barret could have received 46.3% with a 50% random exit
poll.
For a "two tail" test make this a 2 in 10,000 chance of this much deviation from 50%.
The Standard Error (or best estimate of Standard Deviation) comes out to be 1% (=sqrt(0.5*0.5/2,457)), so 46.3% is 3.7 SD from the mean. This is well outside the 95% confidence interval which would be about 48% to 52%.
With a 30% "cluster factor" (so Standard Error become 1.3%) this is reduced to 2 in a 1,000 (0.2%) chance. Again well outside a 95% confidence interval of 47.4% to 52.6%.
For a "two tail" test with cluster factor this becomes a 4 in 1000 chance of this much deviation from 50%.
For a "two tail" test make this a 2 in 10,000 chance of this much deviation from 50%.
The Standard Error (or best estimate of Standard Deviation) comes out to be 1% (=sqrt(0.5*0.5/2,457)), so 46.3% is 3.7 SD from the mean. This is well outside the 95% confidence interval which would be about 48% to 52%.
With a 30% "cluster factor" (so Standard Error become 1.3%) this is reduced to 2 in a 1,000 (0.2%) chance. Again well outside a 95% confidence interval of 47.4% to 52.6%.
For a "two tail" test with cluster factor this becomes a 4 in 1000 chance of this much deviation from 50%.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages