Does a recount mean that the Secretary of State simply runs the same op-scan ballots through the same machines? No. Here's the law. And here's the key sentence:
No mechanical, optical, or electronic device shall be used for the counting of ballots.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
New Hampshire: It's the law
Dennis Kucinich has asked for a recount in New Hampshire. Bless his elven heart. I'm going to forgive him for the Ron Paul thing, and perhaps even for marrying a woman who rightfully belongs to me.
Does a recount mean that the Secretary of State simply runs the same op-scan ballots through the same machines? No. Here's the law. And here's the key sentence:
Does a recount mean that the Secretary of State simply runs the same op-scan ballots through the same machines? No. Here's the law. And here's the key sentence:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Glory, glory, hallelujah! Not so much as an abacus in sight.
I hope they like tally marks.
If states insist on using privatized, proprietary software run machines then they can enjoy the hand recount. It is that simple.
'Trust us' is not an acceptable standard, especially after so many questionable election results.
Mike
That is the best news of this primary season. But will the media cover the results?
...egh.
I can forgive an awful lot from "Kooch" and his spouse, but...Ron Paul? Come on. There are fewer things in this election cycle to "hate on" than most seem to think, but Ron fucking Paul isn't one of them.
I share your enthusiasm a little bit, but somehow it sounds too simple. If we assume someone was in position to rig the votes, and has done so, unless he is a total moron (which I doubt), he's got to have thought about the possibility of a recount. And devised some plan B to counter it. Oh well, let's see what will come out of this.
The law is one thing, what happens is another.
Back in the Florida recount season of late 2000, the first recount, mandated by law whenever the results are within some small x% difference and thereby triggered by the first results, also required some kind of actual recounting. However, some sizable percentage of precincts, if not a majority, simply reprinted the vote collating tabulating machine tape results. This meant that some fraction of votes were never recounted even once, let alone the 'counted and recounted and recounted again' mantra of Baker and co.
While that was known either immediately or certainly sometime during the lengthier proceedings, this incorrect procedure, non-compliant with Florida law, was never ordered to be remedied by election officials.
...sofla
Handcounting is derided as unwieldy and too cumbersome. The truth is that we used handcounting effectively and efficiently up until recently. I speak as an election judge who has actually counted ballots prior to the forced introduction of the tabulator machines. (At my precinct we do have paper ballots but they disappear into the Diebold tabulator to be invisibly and privately "counted" and the election judges have no way of ascertaining how the votes on that ballot were tallied). It is entirely workable, doable and efficient to handcount ballots. In fact I believe it is the ONLY true way to hold an election and to have any confidence in the results. Our entire democracy fails if we can have no confidence in the results. So what if we do not have the final tally by the 10:00 news hour? (You DO realize that it is the big "news" media that has required the privatized, machine voting? It is so much more convenient for them). Handcounting is never more onerous than the turnout of voters in any given precinct. The size of the precinct should never be too large for such a task. It should not be that much more of a task than counting the results of a large high school election, or a union, or any organization of several thousand members. I have done it and I know it works, and it is the only way that works.
Post a Comment