There is a recount going on in New Hampshire and most of the numbers are checking out (more or less) but Ward 5 in Manchester has a curious result.
| Diebold Result |
Hand Count |
|
| CLINTON | 683 | 619 |
| EDWARDS | 255 | 217 |
| OBAMA | 404 | 365 |
A look at the Secretary of State’s site shows that, in the same 5th Ward, McCain lost one vote and Romney and Huckabee’s numbers were identical. So, what happened on the Democratic side?
In most wards the candidates are picking up a couple of votes, probably because the machines couldn’t read the ballots. But losing votes is a real head scratcher. We’ll have to see if more wards show up with screwy numbers and whether there are any statistical relationships that emerge between those districts.
Whatever the end result of the recount, somebody needs to do a thorough investigation of what happened in Manchester’s 5th Ward.
That is over 150 more votes on the computer than on paper. They discrepancy is not quite proportionate, in fact it appears to favor my guy. This kind of thing needs an explanation. Did someone screw with the machines or is there a missing pile of over 150 ballots sitting in the back of someone’s car?
how does it favor your guy?
Barack loss less votes than Hillary, narrowing the gap.
Probably not the best way to put it. Obama only lost 39 votes, in the recount, so the recount helps his overall totals, but actually proportionally is it a similar percentage of over votes for Hilary as for Barack
CLINTON (683-619)/683= 64/683= 9.37%
EDWARDS (255-217)/255 = 38/255 = 14.90%
OBAMA (404-365)/404 = 30/404 = 9.65%
So as a fraction of the original tally, Obama and Hilary had their totals reduced by the same amount in the hand count. Edwards actually has largest discrepancy as a fraction of the count.
What is probably indicates is some form of non-systemic bad practice unless we see other wards around the state with similar problems.
another way of putting it is that your guy got the least added votes.
Much better indeed.
That is just screwy, screwy, screwy.
All that could have happened is that the machines were not zeroed out at the start of voting. That is, they started with votes on board, which is very troubling.
All three lose roughly 10% of the computer count. Curious indeed.
It seems that someone needs to count the voter signatures in the book to figure out how many ballots were supposed to be accounted for. This is ODD.
That’s why Bev Harris of Black Box Voting has been trying to get voter books – those things you sign when you come in, so they can try to match counts. Without that, if these numbers are final, and I don’t think they are yet – but if they are, we’ll never know if the machine OVER tallied or ballots were missing or what.
Now, perhaps, people will understand, en masse, why this issue needs MANY, MANY more activists so we can get some good legislation passed that gives us:
Don’t get me started. We have so much work to do!!
You know what you’re talkin’ about.
I really like the idea of using paper ballots that the voter feeds into the scanner because it will kick back any over-vote ballots so the voter has to correct it on a replacement ballot that is accounted for as well. I would also like to see every ballot question have a “none of the above” option so the machines could also be programmed to kick back any under-vote or a ballot marked with the wrong kind of pen, etc. because as it is, they don’t reject under-votes, but count (no marks found) as the voter’s intent of skipping the item.
But the problem with using any technology is that it needs to be handled by parties who are actually trustworthy and the source code used in any technology should be open-source and verifiable by any interested party upon request, at the polls. Video surveillance cameras on the machines wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.
But paper ballots and voter signature books are crucial in any election. And every single ballot should be serialized and tracked from the printer right through every step in the process until they get put away in long-term storage long after the election.
My 2cents anyway.
Conceivably, someone could have fed the same ballot through the scanner a few dozen times. Seems unlikely that someone would cheat in favor of three or five candidates. Or maybe the machine could have been programmed to favor certain candidates by ten percent more votes than were actually cast.
The Secretary of State doesn’t have the memory cards for the scanners and LHS, the company that owns the machines, hasn’t provided them. Maybe they’re erasing them.
If I were the Secretary of State I’d call for a recount for the whole state and demand that LHS provide the cards for review.
But if you raise an eyebrow for this, imagine all those touchscreens with no paper trail down in South Carolina.
Sleep tight. Everything’s under control.
I heard elsewhere that one box didn’t arrive at the 5th ward, but is/was enroute at the time I heard this. So it’s possible this count is simply not final yet.
I wouldn’t guess too much until we know everything is FINAL. Then see where the data takes us.
let me know if you verify that, please.
Will do. Heard it in email from someone whose information has, to date, been impeccable.
Bev Harris of Black Box Voting says that the seals on the boxes of ballots are easily peelable, sort of like post-its, which would make the seal worthless.
I presume that by a missing box you mean box of ballots.
If that’s true, why would the Secretary of State give totals for a recount if the recount wasn’t done yet? For dramatic effect when he finds the last box?
you would get this result. And I would not expect NO problems.
Failure to zero at start is my guess.
with fifty votes in the slot…
Isn’t starting with fifty votes a problem?
And if it is, how come the top candidates got different extra votes? Wouldn’t that be a problem with your scenario? And then why didn’t the candidates at the bottom of the list get their fifty extra votes? Why were their totals the same or lower on Diebolds?
The simplest theory would be that the Secretary of State’s office misplaced a box of ballots, not the most reassuring thing, but it would get LHS and Diebold off the hook. If we go with the “recount” as actually being the “actual recount”, the only way Clinton gets 64 more votes versus the lesser more votes for Edwards and Obama is something not counting correctly in the Diebold, which means either a bizarre malfunction that only affected the candidates with higher vote totals (say, candidates over 100 votes get an extra ten percent), or more likely a programming error or hack. If this were done in areas where Clinton was expected to do well, it would give her the advantage.
Whatever, I’d like to know why the Secretary of State hasn’t already asked for a full recount. I guess denying a problem is a better political solution than solving a problem.
the same.
No machine will ever scan “exactly”, which is why it’s so important to hand audit our votes in every race, and in a significant percent to verify the results.
Scanners can be off. Ballots can be tough to read, etc. In one district in NH, the ink used was too light for the scanner to read on some ballots marked with certain pens, etc.
Manufacturers will not guarantee 100% accuracy.
I would expect a difference of about 1 %. It’s just too easy to overlook a ballot, fail to separate them, etc.
I think that the hand counts show that the opscan system is an excellent one, with total accuracy.
There are reports that 550 ballots weren’t counted in Stratham because the poll workers handed out the wrong pens to mark the ballots.
In Manchester’s 5th District we have the top Democratic candidates getting an extra 10 percent votes. There’s no similar occurrence on the Republican side.
Data guy, wouldn’t you like to know what’s causing that problem? Wouldn’t you like to have someone review the memory cards to see if they were hacked or somehow corrupted?
Or do you believe in data, no matter how you get there?
We are finding in New Hampshire: the best of the best in MOST situations, but considerable naivete and in some areas, and an alarming and wilfull negligence.
Among the “best of the best” of New Hampshire situations:
(1) Beautiful, community oriented hand counted paper ballots in more than one hundred jurisdictions.
(2) Very democratic and participatory township structure of government, combined with very high level of representation of local areas in the state legislature
(3) Amazing level of responsiveness of public officials. Secretary of State Bill Gardner, for example, answers questions personally and tirelessly from just about everyone. Many, many high level officials perfectly willing to talk with and answer all questions from the public.
(4) Beautiful, participatory 100% hand counted recounts.
(5) Very good public records laws. If they have it in their possession, they let you see it THAT DAY. Along those lines, Paddy Shaffer did a hand written records request today which elicited some very good information. The dream team here is in the process of editing another request as I write this.
On the almost schizophrenically BAD side:
(1) A reckless reliance on a sole source private contractor. Not particularly bothered that the company has private chain of custody during critical points, no policy or even apparent concern with having convicted felons involved in the voting system.
(2) Use of a system with known defects without even taking any mitigation steps that other states took.
(3) NO REQUIREMENT to even save the memory cards. The explanation is that they get a disk with the “program” on it. VotersUnite attorney Jon Bonifaz questioned the assistant attorney general on this closely today, because federal law requires records retention of 22 months on electronic media.
New Hampshire has a haphazard policy of allowing the memory cards to be kept, or not, with a chain of custody, or not, shipping back to LHS, or not, and it’s perfectly okay with New Hampshire if the memory cards are erased altogether the day after the election. They profess to believe that if they just have LHS ship them a disk containing some purported program — BEFORE the election, when there aren’t even any votes registered — everything is okay. No one could tell us if this is the memory card program, or the GEMS database file, or the optical scan chip. They seem to have no idea what they are doing with this and I would call this wilfull ignorance, not naivete.
(4) Lack of documentation and lack of diligence on keeping documentation or written procedures in key areas
(5) Ballot chain of custody procedures with major holes and a few very creepy areas that will be the subject of a future article.
The upshot will be that New Hampshire could be the role model for the nation, but not until they purge themselves of a limited number of very significant problems.
The problem with chain of custody: You can have a strong, beautiful, stainless steel chain but if one link is broken, the rest doesn’t matter.
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71381.html?1200634749#POST40426
The flash memory cards in particular should be pulled in the presence of SoS observers, taken in a car with monitors, and observed at all times to the central tabulating location.
I’m sure someone has said it, but NH doesn’t keep track of the cards, I believe, what are the “receipts” of the votes. This is absurd.
God you know in Romania the congress votes on things by putting a black or a white ball in a jar and then it’s counted out in full view of everyone. I used to laugh and think how silly that was but goddamn I sure don’t anymore.
Pax
Just as long as they aren’t jelly beans. You can eat jelly beans.