Aren't Manual Recounts Commonly Used to Settle Close Elections?

[ride525]

Yeah, I know the seven day time "limit" has expired.
And, there are only a few manual recounts requested right now.

But the question (and topic of this thread) is, aren't manual recounts widely accepted across the US as a method to settle close elections? In fact, in Texas, didn't Governor Bush sign legislation giving some sort of preference to manual recounts?

I realize we are talking Florida here, so lots of this should weigh in on what Florida law allows for regarding manual recounts. But I'm also interested in finding out, "Aren't Manual Recounts Commonly Used to Settle Close Elections?" across the US?

Thanks in advance for keeping the personal attacks to a minimum.

 

[Chef0083]

I think you kind of answered yourself. It is usualy state law which mandates the use of a manual recount. Usually if there is enough of a reason to have a manual recount, which is pretty rare, then it's done. I wouldn't consider it to be commonplace by any means.

 

[Czar]

Well I think this situation calls for a manual recount, if not then I dont know what would have to happen to get a manual recount started.

 

[ride525]

I thought that in Califoria, someone just had to request a manual recount, and it happened. I thought the requestor paid for it though.

 

[Format C:]

I think what the statutes say is that anyone can protest the count at which point the local canvassing board will select a sample of precincts and do a machine recount, compare that to the previous numbers reported and if their is a substantial "tabulation error" due to a faulty machine that could affect the outcome of the election, then they can decide to do a partial manual recount and machine recount for the rest of the precincts, or even do a full manual recount for all precincts. The Election Commission has stated that tabulation error means essentially that there is a fault with the machine not counting legal and valid votes (hanging chads, pregnant chads, or dimpled chads etc. don't count, but a fully punched hole) and unless a substantial fault is found with the machine's ability to count and record those votes then a manual recount is not warrented and cannot proceed.

That determination will be what future litigation centers around. From what I've read, I believe the Election Commission is vested with the authority to make that interpretation and determination and that since noone has submitted any evidence that the machines aren't counting "valid" votes then a manual recount can't be justified.

What determines a valid vote when the ballot is intended to be counted by a machine is pretty much established, I believe, as notices were to be posted informing voters to check their card after voting and before submitting it to be counted to make certain that the holes were completely punched for their intended vote. Once again, we're back to the ability to understand and follow directions and if you submit an invalid vote because you didn't check the holes when you were clearly instructed to do so, then who's fault is that? In the end, no matter what system is used for someone to vote, the ultimate responsibility to insure that their vote is cast according to directions so that it is a valid vote and can be counted properly rests squarely upon the voter and noone else.

A dimpled, hanging, or pregnant chad is by definition NOT a valid and legal vote if the machine can't count it. The very purpose of the machines was to eliminate any partisan subjectivity in determining what was and was not a valid vote. THAT one point is what this whole debate boils down to. Can your vote be deemed valid if it was cast in such a way that it was in violation of the instructions and rules that govern its counting? I believe that that is the only question a court should be deciding, and I can't see how they could say yes, that it should count even if it wasn't valid.

 

[AndrewR]

Format C:, that was my reading of the statutes, too.

In answer to the original question, I ask this one: Weren't machine counts instituted to overcome the inherent faults of a manual system?

Something else to consider.

 

[ride525]

<< In answer to the original question, I ask this one: Weren't machine counts instituted to overcome the inherent faults of a manual system? >>



Or weren't machine counts instituted to counts ballots faster?

And your question doesn't answer mine....

&quot;Aren't Manual Recounts Commonly Used to Settle Close Elections?&quot;
well when the election is close.....are they used often to settle it?

 

[Nick Stone]

In my state, we use a permanent felt tip pens (a Sharpie) to draw a straight horizontal line between 2 cirlcles to show which candidate you wish to vote for. I you accidently vote for 2 candidates for the same office then the machine (a scanner) rejects the ballot, and informs you to request assistance because you have failed to follow the instructions properly and could have voided your ballot. If the ballot is accepted, the tally is continuous. At the end of the day the results are immediately pre-totaled and known. All voting machines in the state are identical. If a machine malfunctions, another machine is used. The paper ballot with felt tip lines could be read by humans if necessary. Hopefully humans would interpret the lines on the ballot the same way as the machine did. There would be very little subjective guessing on the part of the election worker. It would be difficult to manipulate different results. Handling the ballots would not likely change the results and the ballots could be safely stored for later court review if necessary.

The Florida IBM punch cards are obviously subject to worker manipulation.
They can handle them and cause &quot;chads&quot; to fall out, for example. Once the ballots are altered even if unknowingly, how could the resultant ballot be stored in its pre-altered state for later court examination? It can't.
It doesn't have marks or words on it. It was meant to be read by machine.

 

[Tripleshot]

Nick Stone

As I understand it,the vote cards are inspected for chads dimpled,pregnant,hanging,whgatever,and then if a determinationis made and approved by the reviewers,both dem and Rep and canvassing board,then the card is placed back in the machine and re-tabulated. That is how it was done i the 4 pecinct test count in Palm Beach County,under the watchful eyes of lawyers from both sides and media coverage and camaras from around the world.

Punch-card ballots notorious for inaccuracies

 

[Russ]

ride525,

No, manual recounts are not &quot;commonly&quot; used to settle close elections anymore. The vast majority, whether automatic, or requested by a candidate, are done by machine. In many states, including Florida the machine recount requires that each ballot be processed multiple times: In Florida, it is three.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Nick Stone]

Tripleshot

So you are saying that the card is examined and placed back into the machine for recount, then -- --

Are you arguing that you should get exactly the same result since the card was not altered or manipulated?

Or are you saying the examination of the card should now give you different result?

Or did I miss your point entirely.

 

[ride525]

<< In many states, including Florida the machine recount requires that each ballot be processed multiple times: In Florida, it is three. >>



Interesting....But now I have a follow-up question....but if each ballot is processed three times, how do they get and &quot;exact&quot; count? With millions of ballots counted, they must always have tiny differences with each count. (The machine recount added many more for both candidates, with something like a thousand net votes more for Gore.) Do they just take an average of the three counts?

Thanks.....

 

[Nick Stone]

ride525

They apparently prosess a group at a time. Maybe 100 to 500 at a time. If they get the same results 3 times in a row, they certify the results for that small group and go to the next small group.

 

[Tripleshot]

Nick Stone

I am not arguing anything. I stated my observation of the process and my interpretation of the intent of the voting canvassing board. The said after they did the sample of the 4 pricincts,the ballots where placed back in a machine and recounted,giving an obvious different answer than the first count. I presume hanging chads were removed after agreement by the 2 voting board members and the democrat and republican observers.

I was not there. I just watched the proceedings on the many news channels I have been monitoring.

 

[Nick Stone]

Tripleshot

I would have to agree that &quot;removing the hanging chads&quot; or some similar manipulation of the cards would be necessary to alter the results if a machine was used to read the votes before and after this manipulation.

Since the ballots have now been altered by an election worker, how do we know that this alteration was unbiased? What if the Republican observer states his oppinion that the ballot should not be altered in any way? Then what happens?

 

[Tripleshot]

Since the ballots have now been altered by an election worker, how do we know that this alteration was unbiased? What if the Republican observer states his oppinion that the ballot should not be altered in any way? Then what happens?

What part of this process do you not understand? Are you implying foul play by the other 3 people? Don't you think if that was a problem,we would have heard about it?

It wasn't a problem. The people that are doing the recount are exercising common sense,both republican and democrat.

 

[SJ]

Tripleshot, yeah and there are 5 people contesting the 1% Palm Beach recount.

1. They were twisting the ballots
2. They were not always using the rules they themselves set to determine a vote

And no they don't have to have the democrat and republican agree with them.

Tripleshot, read the news more. Twisting Ballots

 

[Nick Stone]

Tripleshot

Is the &quot;Washington Times&quot; a trustworthy publication?

Maybe we would have heard about it?

Some of us heard about it.

Who gives the election worker the right to manipulate the ballot?

 

[ride525]

I haven't heard much about The Washington Times. But from it's editorials, it looks to have a pretty right wing slant.

This site claims that Rev. Sung Myung Moon of Unification Church owns The Washington Times. From looking at Unification Church site, looks to be a connection.....Moonies own The Washington Times?

 

[Tripleshot]

Who gives the election worker the right to manipulate the ballot?

Now, you suggest that any handling of the ballot constitutes manipulation?
Do the ballots mysteriously just fly out of the boxes and into the machines without &quot;manipulation&quot;? People handle these cards with there hands. I fact,they fan them as they stick them in the machines to be counted. Hmmmmm. Maybe thats a bad idea,I don't know.


What ever authority it takes has been given and is on camara as to how it is handled. If there are problems,the people who are there are the ones who police themselves and guess what? Republicans are equally represented in the recount room with the Dems. No shananigans.

This isn't a question on recount or methodolgy used. It is about hearing the will of the people or disallowing the will of the people for the sake of expediancy.It is virgin territory for the State of Florida. They will work it out. This is democracy at work here,ugly as it may be.

 

[Nick Stone]

Maybe you like Foxnews.com better

Chad + election workers = manipulation of the election results

My point is that these punch card ballots were not meant to be counted by hand. They were designed to be counted by machine.

I've asked several questions in the this thread, but no one seems to want to actually answer any of them. Any reason why?

 

[Moonbeam]

Hand jobs are only proper where the Republican is behind by a few votes. In all other cases it's stealing the election. Fortunately for all of us, we write our laws as a result of past unjustice to prevent it from happening to us in the future, not to support a condition that currently exists. Bush signed a law mandating hand count of Ballots in Texas because, at that time, it was easy to favor truth. Now that truth can bite him in the ass, hand counts are a sin. Hehe. Yea yea yea, like the fact they were optical ballots really changes this.

Edit: Part of Tripleshot's likn says:

&quot;Punch-card ballots are still used by about a third of American voters, mainly because they're cheap. Upgrading to electronic systems could cost a county with a population of 1 million as much as $20 million. Larry Naake, director of the National Association of Counties, said voting machines usually lose out to other priorities like public safety, public health and road construction at budget time.&quot;

In other words they are not used because manual counts are inaccurate. I heard this issue discussed somewhere and my impression is that the known defects of this system make manual count the usual method for resolving disputes with them. We have been down this road before and laws have been written to insure a more full and fair count with them than the machine can provide.

 

[Moonbeam]

Before we go away drunk on the smell of somebody elses cork, lets see if we can get proof of ballot tampering and not just allegations of tampering. Hand count is allowed so the Republicans are not invested in proving it unreliable and subject to tampering not because it's happening, but because they don't want to loose. It's all about creating a smoke screen of apparent reasonableness to create doubt in the public's mind to help with the PR war that proceeds apace with the legal one.

 

[ride525]

Ok, I'll try to answer one of your questions:



<< Who gives the election worker the right to manipulate the ballot? >>



I don't think anyone give the election worker the right to manipulate the ballot. Both Democrats and Republicans are there. They should simply be examining the ballot to see if there is something the machine missed. Trying to get a more accurate count.

 

[ride525]

Here's an interesting story from CNN on how other states have solved &quot;hanging chad&quot; and &quot;dimple&quot; questionsOther States Manual Ballot Interpretations