10 Years after Florida, 6 Years after Ohio, We Still Cannot Count The Votes
The results of elections tabulated by the computers are like an electronic ouija board without the check of a paper trail that can be used to keep the electronic counts honest.
It has been shown that the machines are easily and quickly hacked. So, let’s look at what Bev Harris at Black Box Voting is working on these days.
Thank you for your work, Bev
|
BIPARTISANLY YOURS: COAKLEY WON THE HAND COUNTS
|
This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I’m still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to ’splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, “I’m a historian, I’ve got all the time in the world.” NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that’s another story.Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.
That’s right. |
According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown’s 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.
Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.
ES&S RESULTS The greatest margin between the candidates was with ES&S machines — 53.64% for Brown, 45.31% for Coakley, a margin for Brown of 8.33%. It looks like ES&S counted a total of 620,388 votes, with 332,812 going to Brown and 281,118 going to Coakley. Taken overall, the difference — 8.33% Brown (ES&S) added to 3.35% Coakley (Hand Count) shows an 11.68% difference between the ES&S and the Hand Counts. Of course, as Mark Twain used to say, there are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics. These statistics don’t prove anything, and probably shouldn’t be discussed without a grain of salt handy before examining more detailed demographics.
As a point of reference, however, in the Maine gay marriage issue recently there was no significant overall difference between machine count and hand count locations.
DIEBOLD RESULTS
Diebold’s results are 51.42% for Brown, with 791,272 Republican votes counted by Diebold, vs. 47.61% for Coakley, with 732,633 Democratic votes counted by Diebold, for a spread of 3.81% favoring Brown.
LATE-REPORTED RESULTS
It’s always interesting to watch hand counts beat machine count results to the newspaper.
In the Massachusetts special senate election, results from six of 71 hand count locations were reported about 2 1/2 hours after the polls closed, with the remaining 65 hand count locations in right away. The slower hand count results represent 8.45% of all hand count locations.
These latecoming hand-counted results favored Coakley very heavily (she got 55.68% of these, earning 4,610 votes to Brown’s 42.9%, representing 3,552, a 12.78% margin) Whether the reports came to the media late or the media posted them late is unclear.
Read more at oped news or go right to black box voting.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
Bev Harris is executive director of Black Box Voting, Inc. an advocacy group committed to restoring citizen oversight to elections.
|
|
|
 |
|
This entry was posted on January 20, 2010 at 10:27 am and is filed under News, Politics, Connect the Dots. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
