How the hell can there, at this point be 77 voters whose votes did

[rateyes]

not count (more to come I'm sure) in a Democratic Republic like the USA?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2704616#2704688

Personally, I don't give a damn if the end result changes or not. ONE person going to a poll assuming his/her vote will count, only to have that vote lost is ONE TOO DAMNED MANY.

I post this here, because I doubt very seriously I'll get an answer to my question as I opposed it at the thread linked above.


AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[Labors of Hercules]

1. yep. absolutely true.

[babylonsister]

2. Stand by to be really surprised at the results. I

think it's worse than most of us realize.

[rateyes]

5. Hand counts would not miss 77 votes...

as we are finding out.

[papau]

12. hand counts do miss votes - look at recounts of handcounts in the 50's

[onenote]

13. they might.

Do you honestly think that in the era before optical scanners, every hand counted election came out 100 percent accurate and that when there were recounts -- and there were recounts before optical scanners, you realize -- the vote totals sometimes changed?

[uppityperson]

3. I just posted the same.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2704770

[rateyes]

4. I just kicked and recommended your thread.

:thumbsup:

[rateyes]

6. Gotta go take my daughter to the orthodontist...

sorry I can't stay and chat with this...I'll check back by later.

[lonestarnot]

7. K & R

Yeah how did 77 get missed? Fuckin' A!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Shit Happens, And You'll Have To Get Over It.

Even handcounting could never yield a 100% perfect result. But at the time of this posting, a 99.62% success rate is pretty damn good, and most definitely not worthy of such tone of outrage that you're presenting.

[uppityperson]

10. Here's 1 of my beefs

or, for the vegetarians, my artichokes
I vote by mail and national election results are announced before they've received my, or anyone in my family, ballots. Why should I vote?

[Winterblues]

15. Is the only thing you ever vote for a Presdident?

Do you ever vote for local issues or your own Representative or Senator?

[uppityperson]

18. Of course I do.

And that is why I always advise those who say "I won't vote 'cause I don't like any pres candidate" to vote. But my presidential vote doesn't count.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Don't Know How To Answer That One. That's Always Kinda Bothered Me Too.

[onenote]

20. because your vote is still counted and, in theory, could still change the election

An election isn't final until the tabulation is certified and its not certified until the mailed-in votes are counted. Assuming (and its a ridiculous assumption by the way) that an election was "called" for one candidate over another even though it was known that there could be enough votes still in the pipeline to change the outcome (and under such a circumstance its highly highly doubtful that the election would be called or that the "losing" candidate would concede), nothing is official yet.

Reason enough to vote, I'd say.

[jberryhill]

37. Those "announced" results are not the official results.

The president is elected when the electors meet quite some time after the election.

Yes, when 50% of districts have reported, and a candidate is winning by 80%, it is statistically likely that candidate will win and, yes, the networks report projected winners.

But you are confusing announced "election results" with the official tally.

And, no, there are few simple systems of "counting things" that are 100% accurate all of the time. How many times does your bank teller count the bills when you make a large withdrawal?

[ret5hd]

14. How loud would you bitch if your stockbroker got 99.62% of your buy/sell orders correct?

or your bank got 99.62% of your deposits/withdrawals correct?

[onenote]

17. and that's why we have a system that provides, in very close elections, for recounts

whether or not the original tabulation was by hand or by scanner.

Let me ask you this: are you opposed to recounting votes that are counted initially by hand? If you aren't then haven't you just conceded that hand counting isn't reliable?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Actually, I'd Wager That Banks Have An Even Less Success Rate Than That.

Don't know if I have any numbers to prove that though, but it wouldn't surprise me to find it to be correct.

As it relates to this topic, and these parameters, 99.62% accuracy with the machines in Hillsborough is pretty goddamn good with all due respect.

[ret5hd]

28. I think you need a new bank.

[rateyes]

26. 99.62% is not good enough.

And, I don't have to get over it.

BTW, how are you doing?

[onenote]

30. and what method would you propose to achieve perfection

since its been historically established that even hand counting doesn't produce "perfect" results

[jberryhill]

38. Ever go to the races?

I play the horses as a hobby, and the totalization systems for pari-mutuel betting manage to deal with a lot of "votes" with high accuracy.

I can never figure out why the tote companies don't compete in the area of voting systems, because that is precisely what pari-mutuel betting is.

[rateyes]

36. Is an 89% success rate acceptable?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x494766

[madokie]

9. it is a concerted effort by the neoCON's for the sole purpose of giving doubt

we are dealing with people who want to overthrow our democratic government and are doing everything in their power to do so,legalities mean nothing to them. Its a do as you must to get what you want and the hell with anyone who gets in the way, and that anyone is us.

[Individualist]

22. and they're being aided and abetted in that effort by DLCers.

[madokie]

23. I have no doubt about that

[onenote]

11. Because in every election, no matter how the votes are counted, errors are made

If you think every election tally made before the advent of electronic scanners was 100 percent accurate and didn't ever change when there was a recount, you are living in a fantasy world.

The reason most jurisdictions have an automatic recount provision for very close elections is that no matter how the votes are counted, there can and almost always will be, some mistakes. The typical standard for when a recount takes place sets a threshhold under which the current tabulation in NH (99.62 percent accurate) look pretty good, actually. By the way, why is it that you failed to mention that the original count was proving to be 99.62 percent accurate?


Stop by reality land once in a while, it will do you good.

[book_worm]

21. you are correct.

this isn't some new phenomenon.

[rateyes]

27. If you haven't noticed, reality says we live in the

21st Century. We should be getting better than we were 50 years ago.

[onenote]

32. so tell us how to achieve perfection

seriously.

[rateyes]

33. You do a handcount, and then you count again,

and then you count a third time. You do 100 ballots at a time, and you add up the numbers, and then you check your calculations two more times. You don't worry about how much time it's going to take. You take all the time that's needed to get it right.

Counting, one ballot at a time, and adding...making sure that the number of votes and non-votes equals the number of voters.

Again, it's not rocket science. Addition and subtraction skills are all that is needed.

[onenote]

34. so do you keep counting until its the same two times in a row

or is the result final as soon as it comes out the same way twice (so that if the result is 100-95 the first count, 101-94 the seond count, 99-95 the third count and 101-94 the fourth count you stop)?

Or do you stop after a certain number of counts even if the result is different each time?

[rateyes]

35. Any individual who cannot take 100 ballots, separate them

into stacks of votes for candidates, and non votes, and hand count them accurately, and not come up with the same count twice in a row with three counts is inept and ought not be a counter of votes.

[onenote]

41. if that's the case, then why count the votes more than once?

If you're certain you have someone who won't make a mistake, there is no need to do a second count. If you aren't certain, and you do a second count, how can you assume that the mistake was made by the first counter,not the second.

[Blue Congress]

24. They are doing the recount by machine??

"there were some 550 ballots that were not read by the op-scan at all. They were seen as blank ballots. Officials there noticed the problem, and then hand-counted some 3000 ballots after the error was discovered."

Only when a mistake is found they recount by hand??

[onenote]

31. no

[Ganja Ninja]

25. That is a pretty high number give the total number of voters

in that county.

[TahitiNut]

29. That's NOTHING compared to Michigan and Florida where NONE counted (per the Democrats).

:grr:

[wintersoulja]

39. whats a little disenfranchisement between friends?

compared to WHOLESALE disenfranchisement?
The outrage around here, its almost...

[bdamomma]

40. kick