Sanders Says Congress Must Combat GOP Attacks on Voting Rights in ‘Any and Every Way’

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | All Things Bernie / Our Revolution | Sanders Says Congress Must Combat GOP Attacks on Voting Rights in ‘Any and Every Way’

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #430696
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 9,978

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/06/21/sanders-says-congress-must-combat-gop-attacks-voting-rights-any-and-every-way

      With the Senate set to vote this week on a sweeping bill that would revamp U.S. election laws and expand ballot access, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday condemned state-level GOP attacks on the franchise and said Congress must combat such voter suppression efforts “in any and every way” possible.

      “What Republican legislatures and governors are doing in the most disgraceful way imaginable is to try to deny people of color, young people, poor people the right to vote, people with disabilities,” the Vermont senator said in an appearance on CNN. “That is outrageous.”

      “We can disagree on all kinds of issues,” Sanders added, “but taking away the right of people to participate in American democracy is unacceptable and the Congress must address that.”

      Sanders’ remarks came as the For the People Act (S. 1) is destined to run up against the 60-vote legislative filibuster, an archaic procedural rule that Senate Republicans have freely wielded to block Democratic priorities from their minority position in the upper chamber.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #430715
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 6,446

      Also, Bernie, Democrats are quite open about Democratic primaries being rigged, and voters magically becoming unable to vote, because the Democratic Party is open about being a privately owned corporation and can put whoever they want on the ballot.  This is all just more fucking campaign pandering, and will not benefit the American people.  IMO, etc.

      America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

      Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

    • #430719
      salemcourt
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,965
    • #430730
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 21,777

      Until then, he’s just farting through his mouth.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

      • #430936
        eridani
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 9,978

        No election can bee deemed valid unless the computer results are verified with mandatory hand recounts.  Please tell us all how IRV would work in the Seattle mayoral primary, which has thirteen candidates.

        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

        • #430993
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 21,777

          I’m also for giving ranked-choice voting a try. It seems to work fine in Maine, and you don’t have to vote for all thirteen candidates, you know. You can just vote for one or none or 13 or any number between. Why?

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

        • #430994
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 21,777

          You do consistently object to any type of reform that is designed to weaken the two party system. Why?

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

          • #431388
            eridani
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 9,978

            Why in bloody hell would you trust a computer program in beta test mode to do the job properly?  IMO, elections without hand count auditing are simply not valid.

            Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

            • #431414
              Ohio Barbarian
              Moderator
              • Total Posts: 21,777

              I came right out and said I’m all for paper ballots. Once again, you put words in my mouth.

              It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

              You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

              • #431586
                eridani
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 9,978

                It is essential that those machines NEVER be connected to the internet, and that their results be audited with mandatory random hand counts.

                Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                • #431610
                  Ohio Barbarian
                  Moderator
                  • Total Posts: 21,777

                  I would rather see hand-counted paper ballots all round, just like we see in the UK. I’m perfectly willing to require hand-counting for all election results. Then there wouldn’t be any way to reprogram a machine.

                   

                  It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                  You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

                  • #431874
                    eridani
                    Participant
                    • Total Posts: 9,978

                    Seattle now has 13 candidates for mayor.  To hand count IRV would first require  pulling the ballots for that contest only–King County has 39 cities besides Seattle.  How can you consider it even reasonable to sort ballot batches for each different race,–an expensive and time-consuming process in and of itself– and then do IRV sorting for 600,0o0 different ballots?  And then City Council contests in a separate sort with nine different council areas.

                    Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                    • #431899
                      Ohio Barbarian
                      Moderator
                      • Total Posts: 21,777

                      .

                      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

                      • #432119
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        IRV would require (minimum) three times current personnel levels.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432142
                        Ohio Barbarian
                        Moderator
                        • Total Posts: 21,777

                        Cut the police budget in half and there’s plenty of money. You sound like a Republican or Democrat, crying about where the money will come from to pay for a social good. There’s plenty of money. It just has to be harvested.

                        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

                      • #432366
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        Not even the very liberal Seattle City Council could get that done, let alone the King County Council.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432393
                        Ohio Barbarian
                        Moderator
                        • Total Posts: 21,777

                        Isn’t it you who frequently mentions Socialist Alternative of how a third party can gain local political power by voter outreach? Now, all of the sudden, elections don’t matter when it comes to police funding. I think that if just one mayor or a few city council people in a major city or three ran against the police and won, we’d have a cut the police budget movement on our hands.

                        Yet you are consistently opposed to any election reform or suggestion on how to make that possible. Those two positions strike me as mutually contradictory.

                        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

                      • #432644
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        But it went nowhere with 5 of 9 city council members opposing it.  She is going to keep trying, and there are two at large positions open this year.  The effort does require ongoing, consistent effort.

                        And I am not seeing how IRV would help here.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432714
                        Ohio Barbarian
                        Moderator
                        • Total Posts: 21,777

                        Give up easily, don’t you?

                        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

                      • #433072
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        Remember–in 1990, it was considered an overly optimistic pipe dream to legalize gay marriage.  You just keep trying.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432439
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 865

                        @eridani

                        You write:

                        IRV would require (minimum) three times current personnel levels.

                        In the Washington gubernatorial race that you mentioned, IRV would have increased the workload of a hand recount by less than three percent, the number of ballots naming the Libertarian as their first choice. (Perhaps more people would have given their first-place votes to the Libertarian if IRV had been in place, because they would know they could express their true preference while still helping to choose between the two candidates who had a chance to win. Still, I doubt that the Libertarian would break ten percent. It’s mathematically impossible that the workload would triple.)

                        In this month’s NYC primary for Public Advocate, IRV increased the workload of a hand recount by zero percent, because Jumaane Williams got more than 50% of the first-place votes. That will happen in many races.

                        I hope the NYC Board of Elections will release detailed information about the mayoral primary, the marquee race in the city’s first IRV contest. With thirteen candidates, it would be theoretically possible for IRV to triple the workload, but IMO highly unlikely. The ballots for the less successful candidates would have to be distributed just right for that to happen. Remember, again, that the ballots to be re-examined at each stage are those for the last-place candidate, and by definition that will be a small number.

                        I appreciate your detailed description below of your experience as a poll worker. That kind of all-day work, by several poll workers per precinct for each of thousands of precincts, is what would have to be duplicated in the case of a non-instant runoff, where all the workers and voters have to show up again a month or two after the first vote. Then in the ensuing weeks, the regular government employees doing the hand recount would have to start from scratch in counting a whole new pile of ballots. IRV means that the hand recount of the first set of ballots can take somewhat longer, but balance that against the efficiency gained by not doing a separate runoff.

        • #431026
          Jim Lane
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 865

          @eridani

          You write:

          Please tell us all how IRV would work in the Seattle mayoral primary, which has thirteen candidates.

          You’ll get to see it in the Democratic primary for Mayor of New York City.  In-person voting ended yesterday, but it will take a while for all the absentee ballots to arrive and be counted.  Voters could rank up to five candidates from the field of thirteen.

          So how does it work?  Slowly, of course.  There’s a post-election grace period for the receipt of timely mailed absentee ballots, and then a further grace period for possible correction of absentee voters’ minor technical errors.  Only then can the count of all the first-place votes be finalized.  Those delays would occur even without IRV/RCV.

          The new system will mean that the tabulation takes longer.  One by one, the lowest-ranking candidates are eliminated, and their votes redistributed to their voters’ later choices.  At each round, the workload will be a bit less, as some voters’ ballots are exhausted (i.e., everyone that voter ranked has been eliminated).  The widespread prediction is that no candidate will break 50% until it comes down to the final two.  In other RCV elections, that might not be the case.  A winner would be declared when the totals were 51%-20%-16%-13% or the like.  In yesterday’s primary, though, the expectation is that the last three will be Adams, Garcia, and Wiley, with Adams in the lead but below 50%.  If so, all twelve rounds will be necessary.  The Board of Elections will probably announce the result in mid-July or so.

          If you’re implying that IRV with a field of thirteen candidates is more time-consuming than simple plurality voting, you’re right.  If you’re implying that it’s impossible, you’re wrong.

          • #431387
            eridani
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 9,978

            Why would you trust a computer program in beta test mode to do the count properly?  IRV handcounting is extremely difficult.  As a precinct worker, I think I might be able to do it accurately for an hour or two.  Eight hours? Fuggedaboudit.

            Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

            • #431492
              Jim Lane
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 865

              @eridani

              Go through the instructions to the election workers, and there’s no step that requires complicated judgment.

              You sort the ballots into piles based on the first-place votes and count each pile. You’re looking only at the first-place votes. These numbers ought to be publicly reported, because one benefit of RCV is that people who ultimately help choose between the Democrat and the Republican can, along the way, express their opinion about who should really win.

              Then you take the (very small) pile of people whose first-choice candidate had the smallest number of first-choice votes. You look at each ballot and sort them according to that voter’s second-choice candidate. You also need to set aside the “exhausted” ballots, the ones where all the voter’s choices have been eliminated.

              So, if Maloney has been eliminated by finishing thirteenth, you now have twelve small piles representing the Maloney voters’ second choices. You count those piles and add each of them to the corresponding pile of first-choice votes. You don’t need to recount each pile. If Adelski had 23,408 first-place votes and picked up 257 from Maloney voters, your smart phone’s calculator tells you that Adelski now has 23,665. Each step (counting the new votes to make sure there really are 257, and doing the addition) should be done by more than one person, as a check against error.

              This process leaves Larsen in twelfth place, so she’s eliminated, and her votes are reallocated the same way.

              Breaking it down into these steps means that no one step is difficult to do, even for a tired worker. It just takes a while.

              There’s a further check available. You can do a recount of the final contest that put someone over 50%. If the final two candidates were Hayes and Tilden, workers just check each ballot in the Hayes pile to make sure that the ballot names Hayes and that Tilden is either omitted or is ranked lower than Hayes. Do the same for Tilden. Then the Hayes pile and the Tilden pile are recounted by hand.

              In this week’s NYC primary, it’s anticipated that the final three will be Adams, Garcia, and Wiley, with Garcia and Wiley both having more appeal to progressive voters. There might be a contest between the two of them to see who makes it to the final showdown against Adams. If that contest is close, doing the same kind of by-hand recount at that stage would be a good idea.

              All this would be as a backstop to the electronic counting. That computer program should be publicly available open-source software, so there are lots of eyeballs to find any bugs. Furthermore, the Board of Elections should be able to inspect the machines to make sure that the published code is what’s actually installed. (Currently, some election authorities aren’t even allowed to inspect their own machines, because the manufacturer insists that the code is a proprietary business secret. That’s ridiculous.) Even with those safeguards, though, I agree with you that there should be provision for recount by hand.

              • #431585
                eridani
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 9,978

                King County (WA)  has 1.3 million registered voters, and turnout in the 70-80% range.  It is flat out not possible to do hand counting of IRV in such a large population.  The 2004 gubernatorial race was won by Gregoire  by a margin of 139 votes statewide, and the statewide hand count was not finished until just before Christmas that year.    That was just one race with no IRV. The county has all or part of 3 congressional districts and 17 state legislative districts.  They usually do hand count auditing only for county wide races, as it is a big expensive hassle to do it for ballots for state LDs and CDs.   They do it only if any of those races is close enough to legally require a hand count.  It would simply not be possible to do  IRV hand counts of every race before it was time to swear the winners in.

                Electronic counting should be abolished, period. Beta test software is simply not adequate, period. The hand count is an absolutely essential means of auditing.

                Diebold sold its elections software to Nixdorf in 2014, but they never allowed anyone to see their software. Oddly, their ATM business was with banks that required them to provide the software, which they did. Not only don’t we have access to voting machine software, but it is virtually impossible to find out any other info about voting machine companies.

                https://news.yahoo.com/wild-west-one-man-journey-033059492.html

                It began to dawn on Caulfield, slowly at first, that the amount the public didn’t know about these companies was vast. Quarterly profits, regional market share, R&D budgets, even the number of employees—often, there was simply nothing. “Basic, basic data—the basic layout of the industry—was just not out there,” Caulfield recalls. “Eventually, we realized that it didn’t exist.”

                Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                • #431656
                  Jim Lane
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 865

                  @eridani

                  I’m relying on the Wikipedia article about the 2004 election for Governor of Washington (link). It confirms my view that IRV/RCV does not pose huge obstacles to a hand recount.

                  There were three candidates in the race. In the initial count, the machine recount, and the hand recount, the third-place candidate, Ruth Bennett (Libertarian), was always at 2.25% or 2.26%.

                  As you say, the hand recount, involving more than 2.8 million paper ballots, took time. But that was, as you also note, without IRV. Suppose IRV had been in place – would that have created insuperable problems? No, not at all. It would mean that the Bennett ballots, a small fraction of the total, would have had to be re-examined to see whether either Gregoire (D) or Rossi (R) received a second-place vote. The workload required to do a statewide hand recount would have been increased by less than three percent.

                  Obviously, the burden would be greater in an election with more candidates, like this month’s NYC primary for Mayor. As I explained, however, the presence of thirteen candidates would not mean that the count took thirteen times as long. The ballots that would have to be examined more than once would be for the candidates who didn’t get many votes.

                  I personally am still undecided about IRV. There are pros and cons, but a manageable increase in the workload should not be a reason to reject it.

                  We should also consider the alternatives. NYC used to have a provision for runoffs if no candidate received 40% of the vote. In this month’s primary, that would probably mean a hand recount to determine who the top two were, and then all the expense, inconvenience, and delay of a runoff election (possibly followed by a hand recount of a whole new set of ballots). IRV eliminates that. The alternative of simple plurality (no IRV or runoff) means that a candidate with 35% of the vote could become the nominee despite being out of step with a clear majority of the voters.

                  • #431873
                    eridani
                    Participant
                    • Total Posts: 9,978

                    That is a major expensive hassle, which King County Elections would have to do for every single race.  They currently don’t do that unless they are forced to because the race is so close.  Their hand count audits are usually done for county-wide contests only to avoid this expensive process.  I can’t even imagine the extra work it would take to deal with three separate congressional districts and seventeen state legislative districts.  Also 39 cities, school boards, utility districts, etc.

                    I like the idea of IRV in principle. but election integrity can only be insured by hand count audits.  It’s that part which is basically undoable.  All election software is essentially a beta test, and we can’t rely on it alone to insure election integrity.

                    Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                    • #431943
                      Jim Lane
                      Participant
                      • Total Posts: 865

                      @eridani

                      You write, concerning King County:

                      Their hand count audits are usually done for county-wide contests only to avoid this expensive process. I can’t even imagine the extra work it would take to deal with three separate congressional districts and seventeen state legislative districts. Also 39 cities, school boards, utility districts, etc.

                      Here again you’re addressing the problems of any hand recount, not whatever added problems flow from IRV. If your program is hand counts or recounts of every race, then all that sorting by office must be done whether the system is IRV or simple plurality or runoff between the top two.

                      Yes, IRV involves more effort, expense, and delay than simple plurality. IRV is still easier, cheaper, and faster than staging a whole new election (the runoff).

                      Either IRV or the runoff is arguably fairer than simple plurality, especially in a primary. If a simple plurality sufficed (no runoff or IRV), there would be a significant chance for a candidate to be nominated who would have lost in head-to-head preferences versus one of his or her opponents. For example, in the Democratic primary for NYC mayor now being tabulated, the leading candidate, Eric Adams, appears to have received about 32% of the first-place votes, with some absentee ballots yet to be counted. Both Maya Wiley and Kathryn Garcia are considered to be more progressive than Adams. Although Adams is still favored to win, Wiley and Garcia combined to receive 42%. If we oversimplify and call both women progressive, and assume that the voters for each will name the other as a second choice, and ignore the 26% of the voters whose first choice was one of the ten other candidates, then we see that IRV will let a progressive win even though the progressive vote was split. With simple plurality, Adams would almost certainly win.

                      Also note that, although there are multiple races, hand recounts are more important in some than in others. In the Democratic primary for NYC Public Advocate (who succeeds to the mayoralty if the Mayor leaves office), preliminary results among the three candidates give Jumaane Williams 70% of the first-place votes. I’m OK with not doing a hand recount of that race.  If there is a hand recount, IRV will add precisely nothing to the workload, because Williams will exceed 50% based just on first-place votes.

                      • #432120
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        –which is why King County will not do them unless a given race is close enough to have a hand count legally mandated.  Why would you think IRV us cheaper than another election, given the massive increase in personnel necessary.  Remember, the ballots would need to be sorted and resorted dozens of times before any additional hand counting is done.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432363
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 865

                        @eridani

                        You write:

                        Remember, the ballots would need to be sorted and resorted dozens of times before any additional hand counting is done.

                        That comment could give the casual reader the impression that IRV creates a requirement that all the ballots must be resorted dozens of times. That’s simply not so. Yet again, you fail to distinguish between two issues: (1) hand recounting every race, even with a rule of simple plurality wins or a rule of top-two runoff, creates a lot of inconvenience, expense, and delay; (2) IRV greatly magnifies these difficulties.  The first point is true.  The second is not.

                        In the example you yourself gave, the 2004 election for Governor of Washington, the ballots for Gregoire and for Rossie would be counted only once. The only effect of IRV would have been that the ballots for Bennett (a bit over two percent of the total) would have had to be re-examined.

                        In the recent NYC mayoralty primary, the top two candidates in first-place votes combined for more than 50%. There’s a good chance that none of those ballots will have to be re-examined. The ballots that picked candidates who did badly will be re-examined, but, by definition, there aren’t many of them. Also, as I pointed out, there will be exhaustion of ballots, partly because NYC allowed voters to rank no more than five of the thirteen candidates, and partly because some voters will choose to rank fewer (maybe only one). Thus, at each stage, some ballots are set aside, never to be re-examined.

                        I’m still not clear on what alternative you prefer. Should Eric Adams, with 32% of the vote, become the Democratic nominee, with no further ado? Should there be a whole new election – the runoff?

                        You write:

                        Why would you think IRV us cheaper than another election, given the massive increase in personnel necessary.

                        I think that because it’s common sense. Polling places in NYC are open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Staff every single election district (the New York term for a precinct) with at least two and preferably four workers for that period. (Sorry, I don’t know how many election districts there are. Lots.) Wait, I’m not done with the increase in personnel. Add in the work before and after to get supplies to and back from each polling place. (It currently includes getting the machines there and back, but even if you want to abolish all machine voting, someone needs to schlep around the registration books and blank ballots and forms for affidavit ballots.) Every polling place also has at least one cop on hand. Before the election, the ballots have to be printed. Afterward, I assume you want a hand recount of a whole new set of ballots.

                        I agree with @ohiobarbarian that if you need an increase in personnel, you hire them. I’m just adding that the increase is less with IRV than with a separate runoff. Given that IRV would entail re-examination of some ballots, do you think re-examining the ballots from one election district would take fifteen hours, the time during which the election workers and the cop must be on hand for the runoff, not to mention the other requirements?

                        If those logistics don’t bother you, consider also the impairment of democracy. Some people just won’t bother to vote in a runoff. Requiring people to show up (or mail in a ballot) twice to make their voice heard means, as a practical matter, that fewer will do so. I’m in favor of encouraging turnout. Early anecdotal reports of the use of RCV in this month’s NYC primary are that most people liked it and felt that their preferences were being more fully taken into account.

                      • #432365
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        –I was a poll worker–you had to be there from 7am to 7pm to oversee the voting process. Positions were mainly filled by committed Dems or Repubs. All ballots were paper, counted by a tabulator that was not connected to the internet, and transported to the elections department when we finished our shifts. We didn’t get out until after 11pm, because we had to count up the number of signatures and compare the totals with the number of ballots that were listed by the machine s having been tabulated. There are 2500+ precincts in King County, each having from 200 to 1000 registered voters. There were generally 8-10 precincts per polling station. We had ~10 poll workers and one supervisor (temps). Our duties were to check voter ID (a utility bill would work if you didn’t have a drivers license), give them a ballot, and have them sign the registration book. We were also charged with giving out replacement ballots if they screwed up the first one and partially tearing the old ballot and putting it in a special envelope in the custody of the supervisor.

                        Yes, that’s a lot of temporary workers, but we were NOT in charge of the hand count validations, and not available for that work–not to mention not trained for it. That was done by regular employees of the department over the next couple of weeks, with all political parties invited to send observers. (I’ve also done that.) IOW, election day temp workers were not available for this process. So your suggestion that a bunch of temps could readily do this is just not valid. Not to mention which, I sure the hell would not be able to do it at the end of a 7am to 11pm work day.

                        The basic issue here is how can you be sure that the results are valid? This outweighs every other consideration in my mind, as important as increased participation is. A hand count is the only way to do it. Not every race in King County is audited, just a few of them as a check on the system. A computer program could do IRV, but the results MUST BE AUDITED! That is the difficult part with IRV.  Hand counts are also mandated if If the difference between the candidates is less than one half of one percent and also less than 2,000 votes.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432645
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        They left test ballots in the queue that got erroneously counted in the election.  IRV defenders said “human error.”  Well geez–who do they think writes the computer programs?  Aliens?

                        Latest New York mayoral count voided after ‘test’ ballots included in tally

                        Why should this be a surprise? This stuff ALWAYS happens to systems in beta test mode, which is by definition what every election is by definition.

                        Despite Adams’ dire warnings, New Yorkers appeared to take to the new system fairly easily. But the elections board’s tabulation error is likely to draw a series of complaints if the final results are close — especially from the campaigns themselves. More than 124,000 absentee ballots have yet to be counted and the race is still anyone’s call.

                        In an odd quirk of election law, candidates must file any legal challenges to the process by Friday even though the full results may not be known for weeks, according to attorney Jerry Goldfeder. That means that if the Adams camp or any other campaign believes it will eventually want to contest the results, they will need to head to court within days to reserve their right to sue.

                         

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

                      • #432826
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 865

                        @salemcourt

                        The numbers in the extremely preliminary release didn’t add up. I don’t mean that in the colloquial sense (“doesn’t add up” = “something is fishy here”). I mean it literally, in the sense of 3 votes in this precinct, 5 in this other one, total of 9. The problem would have been there if the election rule were simple plurality, not IRV.  The discrepancy was quickly noticed. I think the first tweet about it came less than two hours after the release. The Board of Elections investigated and found the mistake.

                        You write:

                        Why should this be a surprise? This stuff ALWAYS happens to systems in beta test mode, which is by definition what every election is by definition.

                        Apparently you think there’s absolutely no difference between, on the one hand, systems that have been used for years, and, on the other hand, the biggest city in the country using RCV for the first time. I disagree.

                        The basic point is not that RCV is bad, or even that electronic voting is bad, but that human error is always possible. I return again to your own example, the manual recount of the paper ballots in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election.  Per Wikipedia (link):

                        King County Director of Elections Dean Logan …  announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[15] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. …

                        There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[16] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.

                        . . . .

                        After all other counties submitted their recount votes, it was revealed on December 20 that at least five other counties besides King County had included ballots that had been discovered after the initial count. For example, Snohomish County included 224 missed ballots that had been discovered underneath mail trays.

                        All this in an election that Gregoire won by 129 votes in the final count.

                        By your logic, the conclusion would be that we must prohibit hand recounts of paper ballots, because they’re subject to human error.

                      • #432938
                        salemcourt
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 2,965

                        You write:

                        Why should this be a surprise? This stuff ALWAYS happens to systems in beta test mode, which is by definition what every election is by definition.

                      • #432960
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 865

                        @salemcourt

                        That reply was for @eridani and I have no idea why I tagged you.  Sorry about that.

                      • #433076
                        salemcourt
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 2,965
                      • #433073
                        eridani
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 9,978

                        –is very, very difficult.   Why would you trust New York’s results at all?  Haven’t figured out if they are even going to bother with that at all.

                        Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.