Skip to main content

View Diary: Allen West Update: St. Lucie to Recount All Early Votes (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  535 is 3.3% of 16,275 (0+ / 0-)

    In a manual recount of op-scan ballots, where there was no gross error in the original count, usually the net change is substantially smaller than 0.1%. Regardless of recount method, a 3-point shift is odd. (I agree that a shift of exactly 0 would also be odd.)

    Without a clear justification, the retabulation is allowed to bolster his defiant call to keep him in office because he says so.
    Well, we'll see, but when this retab ends with (dollars to donut crumbs) Murphy still ahead, I don't think it will have bolstered West. As far as that goes, it's sort of like Obama's decision to release his birth certificate. Birthers, by definition, aren't convinced, but I don't think it has strengthened their cause in any way.

    I do agree that candidates shouldn't be able to force changes in procedure just by being pissy. Ideally, these matters shouldn't depend on candidates at all.

    Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
    Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

    by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:17:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ok, but what's the validity of that 16,275 subset (0+ / 0-)

      treated as 100% of anything?

      In a smaller subset, 535 would be a much larger percentage...in any random subset of similar size, what reports exist suggest that the changes would/should be much smaller.  Without saying why or what, it's suggested that "problems" were "there" in those days of early voting.

      That's magic reasoning, especially considering there's no explanation of how alleged corrections were found or decided and the appearance of the net difference being derived from negative movement on both sides of the tally sheet.  (Potentially) no switching, no missed marks, only fewer valid votes.

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:28:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure how much I can add (0+ / 0-)

        Based on experience, a 3% net change is unlikely to result from judgment calls on individual ballots.

        Of course one cannot extrapolate from that rate to a larger set of ballots; if one could, I guess we wouldn't bother with recounts.

        Again, as I understand it, the supervisor's position is that the error source is known and is confined to three days of early voting. From my vantage, that is the best substantive (perhaps not the best legal) argument for not expanding the retabulation. The more uncertainty there is about the error source, the stronger the argument for expanding the retab.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:41:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but the more uncertainty there is to the nature of (0+ / 0-)

          the alleged errors (let alone the source), themselves, the more discountable they are.  Phantom errors should be described and defended as real before the outcome of the vote is affected to any degree.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:56:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  eh, this would be easier over a beer or something (0+ / 0-)

            I haven't seen anyone dispute that the partial recount of early votes corrected errors. The dispute is over whether finding errors in one part of the early vote raises doubts about the rest.

            I'm inclined to think that the election supervisor has good reason to think not. At the same time, philosophically, I don't think that people should have to depend on election officials' judgments any more than necessary.

            If we want to know whether there are substantial errors in the rest of the early vote count, the best way to find out -- certainly for those of us who don't work in the supervisor's office -- is to examine those ballots. I would guess that there aren't, but I don't object to finding out.

            Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:21:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (152)
  • Community (77)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (45)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Climate Change (35)
  • Environment (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (33)
  • Culture (32)
  • Civil Rights (29)
  • Science (29)
  • Republicans (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • Congress (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site