I contacted the Secretary of State's office to ask for comment now that King County has acknowledged that crediting is an integral part of the ballot counting process and not just a post-certification file-maintenance procedure that is unrelated to ballot-counting, as both King County and Secretary of State have essentially been saying for the last two months. I had an interesting e-mail exchange with an official representing the Secretary of State.
I'll prepend a comment I've made before, which is that the Secretary of State would inspire a great deal more confidence with the public if he jumped to the front of the parade to help get to the bottom of what really happened in King County. It's by no means too late for him to do that.
Email exchange ensues --
SoS official:
If you did not sign your absentee, or if it was postmarked a day late, your ballot did not count --- but you are still “credited” with voting to prevent your voter registration from expiring due to non-participation. So there is no relation between the “total ballots cast” and the “total number of voters credited with voting” which is the erroneous comparison some wanted to make last December in various news stories. Note, not all counties handle crediting the same way. Most credit as they count; some do it after the fact; some a combination of the two. Some leave purging, part of the crediting process, until after the election is certified others do during the count as things slow down.I replied to point out that if not all credited absentee voters had their ballots counted, then it would imply that the discrepancy between ballots counted and actual voters is even larger than reported. The follow-up response from the SoS office:The reason crediting occurs is that the NVRA says you may be dropped from the voter rolls for failing to vote in two successive federal elections (4 years), but you may redeem yourself by voting in the next ensuing election. Since NVRA will not allow election officials to drop voters when officials receive USPS change-of-address notices or if a surviving spouse call in to report a death, election officials look forward to “crediting” to clean up their lists.
>>> more ballots counted than voters credited. <<<The substance of my reply:That’s because the crediting process also involves purging the rolls of non-participating voters who can be dropped under the NVRA provisions. This cleans-up the voters roll for the next election.
Crediting has nothing to do with ballot reconciliation. Crediting is not balanced again the ballot reconciliation.
Ask any election official in our state, they will tell you the same thing.
“Crediting” should not be confused with “ballot reconciliation.”
Our state law freezes the voter registration rolls 15 days prior to election day (last day for walk-in registrations). This is the voters’ list that determines the number of registered voters eligible to vote and that is the number that appears on our election night reporting system and in official abstracts.
The voters list in mid-December, after crediting (and purging), is legally irrelevant to the election canvass and proves nothing.
It's not just a legal issue. It's a matter of public perceptions and confidence in the system. If the number of absentee ballots counted exceeds the number of identified absentee voters in one county by roughly 500 (4 times the apparent margin of victory), the public will look for an explanation. The explanations offered here don't explain the specific situation in King County for two reasons:Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 02, 2005 01:40 PM | Email This1) The voter list that King County released on Dec. 29 appears to have been produced without any post-electioin cancellations. I compared it against the latest pre-election voter file (dated Nov. 1) and no records were dropped between Nov. 1 and Dec. 29.
2) King County claims that it no longer credits the voters whose ballots are not counted. See Dean Logan's statement in the Seattle Times of Feb. 9
He acknowledged, however, that discrepancies in 2000, 2001 and 2002 may have been inflated by the county's practice at the time of crediting absentee voters with having voted even if their ballots weren't counted because they were mailed too late or because of signature problems. The county has since stopped that practice.If I read your earlier email correctly, that might be a problem for a different reason, but it wouldn't seem to affect the number of voters credited.Having said all that, I'm open to the position that there is other documentation that does a better job of demonstrating the true ballot/voter discrepancy than the credit count from the voter file. Various citizens (including myself) have asked King County to disclose other absentee ballot reconciliation reports, I haven't received them and I don't believe they've been released to any other members of the public. If you've seen other documentation from King County that reconciles the number of absentee ballots with absentee voters, please share it. In the meantime, the credit number is the only relevant number that has been released and there is no convincing explanation why that number is lower than the number of ballots counted.
You say: "the credit number is the only relevant number that has been released and there is no convincing explanation why that number is lower than the number of ballots counted."
Re: "credit number" and "number of ballots counted".
What precisely is your source for these two figures with respect to absentee voters and votes. What were your numbers and how were they calculated. Are any of your source figures available on line, or do we just have to take your word for the accuracy of the source and calculations?
Thanks in advance.
Fair question. I calculated these numbers from documents released by King County. I'm actually preparing a spreadsheet that lays out the case clearly enough that it makes sense to post it. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 2, 2005 02:13 PMSOS office said: If you did not sign your absentee, or if it was postmarked a day late, your ballot did not count --- but you are still “credited” with voting to prevent your voter registration from expiring due to non-participation.
I find this interesting because in Yakima County you can’t get someone off the list with a jackhammer. My daughter registered in late 1980 and has not voted since at least 1990, has registered and voted in 3 other places and is still on Yakima County’s list, in spite of the fact that we called and asked she be removed and in spite of the fact that they sent out a postcard asking her to verify her signature if she wished to continue to be eligible to vote in this county. We threw the card away. She is still on the list.
SOS office said: Since NVRA will not allow election officials to drop voters when officials receive USPS change-of-address notices or if a surviving spouse call in to report a death, election officials look forward to “crediting” to clean up their lists.
Then what good will it do for counties to compare to lists of deceased persons in order to clear the voter rolls? It seems to me they are running in flippin circles trying to cover their rear ends.
SOS Office said: Our state law freezes the voter registration rolls 15 days prior to election day (last day for walk-in registrations). This is the voters’ list that determines the number of registered voters eligible to vote and that is the number that appears on our election night reporting system and in official abstracts.
In Yakima County, anyone registering after October 2 was listed as ineligible.
YOU SAID" I compared it against the latest pre-election voter file (dated Nov. 1) and no records were dropped between Nov. 1 and Dec. 29.
Are there any additions to the voter file after Nov 1 that voted in the 2 Nov election?
If so, are those valid ballots? If there are additions, could it have been just crediting to try and disguise the massive discrepancies than you uncovered and outed them on by posting it here?
Thanks, I look forward to the data.
You said:
" I calculated these numbers from documents released by King County."
Can you identify these documents precisely, and how and from what data they are compiled (if you know), when you post your data.
One of the problems when trying to follow this controversey in the news, or on the various blogs, is trying to figure out what data folks are using to base their statements and/claims regarding the voter crediting discrepancies.
Posted by: chew2 on March 2, 2005 03:20 PMBe careful: The more you deal with bureaucrats the more likely it is that you will become a cynic who believes that the least likely person to know the rules is the bureaucrat whose job is governed by those rules.
I know: Been there, done that, and am that cynical.
Note that voters who vote at the polling places are credited with having participated by an entry in the poll books:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.44.231
Note that polling place workers are required to make a record of any discrepancy between the number of signatures in the poll books and the number of ballots issued:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.44.280&fuseaction=section
The polling places, then, have a procedure that is as old as the hills for crediting voters with participating and using that crediting as one means of keeping people from voting more than once.
Note that the statute which describes the processing of incoming absentee ballots says nothing about doing any such reconciliation for absentee ballots nor does it say that the people processing the absentee ballots must check to see if a previous absentee ballot has already been received from any voter:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.40.110&fuseaction=section
Bureaucrats who write their local rules based on that statute's requirements won't include any step designed to prevent voting more than once -- and may not even realize the step is missing from their process.
Even though it is included in the RCW chapter that sets out the canvassing process, some bureaucrats may not notice that part of the canvassing process for absentee ballots is to credit voters with having voted on their voting registration record:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.60.180
So, the bureaucrats will have some vague notion that they aren't supposed to allow people to vote more than once, but they may not be able to place their fingers on the actual rules.
For example, someone at the SecState office may think that crediting voters with having voted isn't a required part of the canvassing process prior to certifying the county's election returns, even though that person is pretty sure that the software somehow prevents acceptance of more than one ballot from any one person.
The process which revealed the apparently large number of extra ballots in King County was not a process involving "crediting" voters with participating. The voters should have already been credited with participating by entries in the poll books or in their computerized voter registration records in the case of an absentee ballot.
Instead, it was a process which used those pre-certification poll book records to update the computerized voter registration records to show the last date on which the individual voted:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section§ion=29A.08.125
The last date should have already been noted as part of the canvassing of absentee ballots, so the updating of the voter registration records should have involved only the poll book entries.
But, how many counties did it the way the law describes?
You cannot know by asking the bureaucrats.
You have to read their own written instructions and check their own records to see if you can determine what they actually did.
The bureaucrats are the least likely people on the face of the Earth to know what the rules are that govern their own jobs. They only know what they believe has "always been done" or what they copied from watching or listening to some other bureaucrat.
Beware the bureaucrat who says "we've always done it this way." That is the surest sign that the bureaucrat has never actually read the rules.
Posted by: Micajah on March 2, 2005 03:36 PMUh, chew...you don't have to take anyone's word for anything. Stefan is doing this as a public service; someone has to, because our public officials aren't interested.
Try being a little less snarky on your requests, eh?
Posted by: South County on March 2, 2005 03:55 PMStefan, I can't point to anything specific, though I'll keep looking. It's a general sense of KC trying to conceal something relating to the crediting process. Maybe I mis-read or mis-remembered something... or maybe...
the 153,000 tabulated on Election Day
This report adds about 84,000 tabulated ballots
it is expected that another 75,000 ballots
That's an interesting pace discrepancy, especially noting that election day counting could not begin until the polls closed.
Does King County have an electronic copy of the books at the precinct for crediting votes? If it does, then counting absentee ballots could begin immediately. If it doesn't, then the absentee ballots can't even start being counted until the precinct poll books have been returned... unless King County forgot a step.
Then each has to have the signature of the voter verified against a digitized facsimile maintained in a special computer file, and the voter credited so that no one can vote twice.
Please note, it doesn't say they're actually checked against the precinct poll books. It may mean that it only prevents people from voting twice via absentee ballot.
If they did the process correctly, they should have found (on election day) some number of absentee ballots cast by people who also voted in the polls. Those envelopes should still be sitting somewhere with their ballots inside.
On the other hand, considering the degree of competence shown, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out they were the 730 (or however many) "mystery" ballots found for the hand recount.
Posted by: Dishman on March 2, 2005 04:21 PMKeep in mind, County Auditors are elected often based of popularity. A few are actually qualified before elected. Also, Election Staff turnover can be high...especially in KingCo. People "train" replacements often based upon what the last person did.
Logan was at least "qualified" by comparison to most. Logan's problem is he is a Democrat political appointment which creates all kinds of other appearance of fairness issues. Logan is also cursed with the "know-it-all" syndrome. He loves being the "expert" on the law...however, making sure the law is properly implemented is also his job...and his weakness.
Logan is the Captain of the Election Ship. He accepted that title, responsibility and pay. As a worthy mariner...it appears he is willing to go down with the ship.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 2, 2005 04:22 PMLogan needs to take the fall for all of the problems in this election. Out here in the real world, when a department makes a mistake, or the team has a miserable losing record, the manager or the coach get fired.
Even if the contest fails, the management of KC Elections is clearly sub par. I am fully confident that I could go in tomorrow with no other knowledge then that of my Computer Engineering degree and 20 years of Computer and Network management and completely overhaul KC elections into a very accurate, and highly disciplined and respected organization by the November Election. And I'm sure many of the other readers here could do so as well. It's not rocket science, just basic management, well documented procedures, clear and concise recordkeeping and accounting, etc.
As long as this is a partisan appointment instead of a job that someone takes seriously and is held accountable to, we will continue to have flawed elections in King County.
So what's the best place to start to fix the system?
Fire Dean Logan.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2005 05:00 PMNo disrespect, Jeff, and I'm totally supportive of your technical qualifications - but, as a shiny new boss from Outside the System you'd be targeted for backstabbing by every job-clutching time-server in the whole elections department. And they'd all be supported by the Democrat organization of King County.
You'd need a platoon of loyal junior officers to systematize and enforce whatever procedures would result in a fair and rigorous document control system - and instead you'd be presented with a platoon of sulking County minions who didn't do it that way last year. And if they didn't inspire cooperation from the temps who do most of the work, the ship would continue to leak.
Cheers to you for projecting a solution. It's the right approach. But until King County escapes the dead clutches of its current Politburo, cleaning up that department exceeds any labor of Hercules.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 2, 2005 05:28 PMHey, Micajah: we might agree after all on this mess. :-)
Why not fire them all and start over. ;-) I'm sure there's some federal law that prevents firing these bureaucrats or something, but the point is that the organization really does need to clean house.
I believe KS is right too, there's noone above Dean Logan that would fire him, lest the spotlight turn on them. But, he should still be fired, if even on principle. I'm sure the Democrats will get rid of him when the storm blows over. Afterall, he did a really bad job of delivering the election what with all of this controversy and suspicion.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 2, 2005 09:27 PMMaybe it is true that comparing the number credited voters to the number of votes counted is not a good measure of the accuracy of an election. Nevertheless, they are both numbers derived from the same process, and they should be able to explain the reason for the difference between them.
Explaining that difference is EXACTLY what they have been dancing around for 4 months. It looks and quacks like a duck, and stinks like a dead fish.
They are hiding something. The Seattle media is too lazy and too comfy with GreGore to prove it.
So, I just donated more money to SP tonight.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on March 2, 2005 09:28 PMYou said:
"Note that the statute which describes the processing of incoming absentee ballots says nothing about doing any such reconciliation for absentee ballots nor does it say that the people processing the absentee ballots must check to see if a previous absentee ballot has already been received from any voter:"
If I recall correcty the emergency regulation you've cited many times requires a precinct level reconciliation that includes absentee votes.
I'd bet, and I think you would too, that all the counties have some procedure in place to check for double voting by absentees, whether it's specifically required by statute or not. I recall that you yourself told me that, when an absentee ballot came in election workers would check it against signatures on file in the computer, and credit the votere if the signature matched. You suggested that if another ballot came in under that voters name, the election worker would find the voter already credited and would know to flag that ballot.
Given your description of how the prcess worked, I found it very hard to believe the supposition that 500 absentee ballots could have been processed without crediting the voter in King County. But I would have to know precisely what bureaucratic procedures and steps are taken in King County to process and credit absentee ballots to evaluate that claim.
Besides I still think it highly unlikely that any errors in the crediting process can by themselves constitute grounds for an election contest.
Posted by: chew2 on March 2, 2005 09:37 PMAbsentee ballots should be validated against a list of people who signed up to receive them, should they not? And shouldn't signing up for an absentee ballot disqlaify a person from the polling-place books?
I would expect that someone who signed up for an absentee ballot and never returned it should be able to cast a provisional ballot, and it would be necessary to validate provisional ballots against absentees, but I wouldn't think there should be any double-votes by people who cast an absentee and a polling-place ballot.
Posted by: supercat on March 2, 2005 09:41 PMI have double-paid a car payment. It happens.
Posted by: Dishman on March 2, 2005 11:07 PMFire Dean Logan.
As another poster suggested, the person to fire is Ron Sims. It's not an accident that Logan was hired.
Posted by: South County on March 3, 2005 03:16 AMI think you've hit on it: There are two ways for several hundred absentee ballots to show up in the stacks of ballots on which votes are being counted without there also being a voter credited with having cast each one of those absentee ballots -- (1) by "stuffing" them illegally into the stacks of legitimate ballots during the counting process; or (2) by somehow failing to credit a voter with having voted.
I believe what I've described before is a process for checking absentee ballots which would make it virtually impossible to fail to credit a voter with voting. The bar code on the envelope is scanned. That info is uploaded. That info is used to retrieve the voter's signature image for comparison. Without that info, no signature or other data about the voter appears on the monitor, thus the worker is brought to a dead stop. Someone must go back and scan that bar code again, so the process can move forward.
Compare that to the poll book scanning. If a bar code is not properly scanned into the database, nothing is stopped -- you just end up with a list that has too few names on it.
What I have not said is that there is a foolproof system for processing absentee ballots which prevents acceptance of the second or zillionth ballot from the same voter.
The reason I have not said that such a foolproof system exists is that I have not yet seen any evidence of its existence.
Indeed, in my own county I have read their written instructions, so I know that their workers are expressly told to ignore the software's warning message -- and I quote, "AV Ballot Already Received," "click OK or Enter" and move on to the "view batch" screen.
I am sure they believe that somewhere in their system is a step which will screen out the second or zillionth ballot from a voter, but I cannot find it in their instructions.
Does King County do something similar or have similar written instructions? I don't know.
The reason I pointed out (and provided a link to) the statute which deals with processing incoming absentee ballots is so you could read it and see that it says nothing about preventing double voting. Bureaucrats tend to copy the statute, with a little paraphrasing of some words, and turn it into their written instructions. The absence of any mention of a need to check to see if a voter voted more than once will produce written local instructions with the same omission.
If no one tells the software to reject the second ballot, what does the software do? I don't know. It might simply give you a list of voters that is too short -- because it will list voters only once even though some of them voted more than once.
It would be a simple thing to test. Print up two batches of envelopes. Make two envelopes for each of three voters and only one envelope for the other voters. Scan the two batches into the database, making sure to put one of the two envelopes for those three voters into one batch and the other into the other batch. Go through the signature verification process. See if the software somehow tells you what you already know, namely that three of the voters voted more than once. See how it tells you that, assuming it tells you. Take that experience and see what you can then figure out about the 1800+ extra ballots in King County.
As for the emergency rules and their reconciliation requirement, that is irrelevant to the point I am making. My point is that there needs to be a way to prevent people from voting more than once -- and that way is to "credit" them with voting as part of the canvassing process -- and that is now already required by law -- but may not be done in practice. Once that second, third or zillionth ballot makes it into the pile, it's too damned late to get it back out of the pile -- reconciliation after that point can only tell you that you have a zillion illegitimate ballots that seemingly appeared out of nowhere.
When you say "the crediting process" you are making the same mistake that the ignorant bureaucrats make. The post-certification updating of the computerized voter registration records to put the date of the last election in an individual's record is NOT "crediting" that voter.
"Crediting" the voter is done before certification, as a way to prevent people from voting more than once.
If you fail to "credit" voters with having voted, and as a result you make it easy for zillions of illegitimate or illegal ballots to be inserted into the count, you have most certainly created grounds for contesting the election.
Posted by: Micajah on March 3, 2005 07:31 AM"Why not fire them all and start over."
A fine idea. That would be applying the spoils system with a happy vengeance, but would first require an elective process replacing Ron Sims with an honest Executive - hopefully Republican. One can always hope - and Sims' legislative brutality to rural citizens with the CAO, combined with the King County election misfeasance, does make him vulnerable.
The old-charros-and-femmes culture of county election departments could use a rude awakening as well - and that requires a SOS with principles and determination to end the happy acquiescence in sloppy or crooked election processing.
I see the biggest problem as the negligent (and a few venal) polling place directors and 'reconciliators' and 'creditors', who may require a generation of honest (at least non-negligent) administration to replace by normal attrition.
I would pay a lot to attend the ceremony in which Dean Logan hands over to yourself, or some other vigilant and competent elections director. But once the discovery process takes place in Wenatchee and the evidence is clear, Mr. Logan under oath may be pretty self-incriminating whether he likes it or not. Should he be sworn in with his right hand on the Big Binder - since religious symbolism is now beyond the pale?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 3, 2005 07:43 AMYou are claiming that bureaucrats only slavishly follow the statutes, and thus might not have implemented a system to prevent double voting by absentees. I say they would use common sense, and use a system that would prevent double voting and point to your own description of the system which flags double votes. You say in your county workers are instructed to ignore that flag. Why? Because the software doesn't work? So are they are trying to prevent double voting or not?
I believe there are also systems in place to prevent sending out more than one absentee ballot. If so, how could mutliple votes be cast by absentees. I recall, King County realized that they had sent out a small batch of duplicate absentee ballots, and had to contact the recipients to retrieve those ballots.
I did use "crediting PROCESS" as you describe, since that's how everybody has been using it up to now. And as I said that would be no grounds for a contest.
If election workers failed to "credit" a voter during the election process, so what? That is no proof that the voter actually cast a second vote.
Let's be clear here, we don't have any evidence or anecdotal reports of failing to credit, or of double voting do we?
Ballot stuffing? Proper crediting systems or crediting would likely not prevent ballot stuffing by an election worker. In any case, we would need to see some proof that this occurred to be a grounds for contest. Wasn't the ballot counting process crawling with election observers from both parties? And even if there were proof, how would we know on whose behalf the ballots were stuffed? If they were introduced during the recount, why not by some Rossi supporter to get him over the hump?
Do you suspect that some ballots were stuffed in just this county in just this election? If so, why? Or do you think that the same sort of stuffin goes on all time and we just haven't paid attention until now because this election turned out to be so close.
Posted by: chew2 on March 3, 2005 09:06 AMWe could talk in circles forever, I suppose.
"Crediting" is the term used in the statutes to refer to the process which is required to be done before certifying the election returns.
So, when I said "crediting process" and you said in reply "crediting PROCESS," it is obvious that you didn't get the point. The word "credit" or "crediting" is the point of emphasis, not the word process.
Absent a crediting process, there is simply no way to prevent double voting.
I am saying that nothing other than your faith in the common sense of bureaucrats supports a belief that there is a foolproof system of crediting voters with voting.
I have no such faith in their common sense.
I instead presume they are all idiots until proven otherwise.
But, neither one of us has the ability to get the bureaucrats to run the simple test I proposed.
So, we are stuck with a King County report which indicates that no matter how often and in what way you count the number of voters they credited with voting, you cannot come up with a number of voters that matches or exceeds the number of ballots.
I look at that situation and realize that it means there may have been illegitimate ballots put into the vote counting process -- either one at a time by double voters or a bunch at a time by crooks.
You look at it and conclusively presume that no such thing could have happened.
And, so we would never agree based on our suppositions.
Thus I can only wait for the evidence to be offered, since I have no ability to kick down the doors in King County and require them to run a simple test to see how their software and their procedure would react to the presence of two ballots from any one voter.
Posted by: Micajah on March 3, 2005 11:02 AMI used "crediting process" to refer to updating the computer file as required by the statute you cited.
I used "credit" to refer to marking down voters as their votes were processed.,
I used "crediting sysem" to refer to the system of marking down voters and preventing double votes, and to distinguish it from "crediting process".
So I hope I was using the terms as you were.
Re: the alleged double and fraudulent absentee votes which we were discussing. I don't conclusively presume anything, you seem to be the one who is doing that.
Sharkansky has made the claim that there is a 500 vote discrepancy in the absentees. From this you appar to conclude (am I reading you right here) there must be double votes or fraudulent votes.
But I have no way of judging the accuracy of Sharkansky's claims without knowing the nature of his source documents, what they purport to count, how they were prepared, what sort of error they might contain.
Which is more likely? That sharkansky's source data and calculations are wrong, or That there were double absentee votes. Right now I'd bet that its the former, but clearly we need to know mre.
In any case, I'm also saying that you need more proof and evidence of fraudulent or double voting than Sharkansky's alleged discrepancy to support an election contest.
I don't have the ability to kick down the doors in King County, therefore I obviously cannot offer any "evidence."
I can offer this report, indicating that Snohomish County reported counting the votes on 124 more absentee ballots than there were voters credited with voting by absentee:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/003649.html
Something is wrong in Snohomish County. Is it their software? Is it the way they use their software? Is it a "stuffing" of ballots rather than a problem in processing incoming ballots? Who knows?
To my recollection, King County hasn't made any such statement indicating that their problem is split between absentee and polling place ballots, although Logan has on at least two occasions stated that the excess of ballots over voters credited with voting resulted from errors at the polling places. If Stefan is correct, some of the total discrepancy in King County may also result from absentee balloting.
In my own county, they apparently aren't using the software as it was designed to be used. They ignore that "AV ballot already received" warning from the software, because it is simply telling them what they already know -- they just finished scanning the bar codes on the envelopes and uploading that data into the computer, so of course when they type in the name of the first voter in the mail tray in order to retrieve the signature images for that batch, the software tells them that voter's ballot has been received. They have no other step described anywhere in their written instructions which even hints at an ability, much less an effort to prevent double voting. Happily, they reported having only 18 more ballots than voters (not broken down by polling place vs. absentee).
In a better world, these questions would have been answered before a certificate of election was issued.
In the world we must live in, they will perhaps be answered in court.
If you say that the inability to come up with a count of voters credited with voting which matches or exceeds the ballots is not evidence of a problem, then I say -- here we go in circles again.
To me, it is evidence of a problem since it raises the obvious question that needs to be answered: Where did those extra ballots come from, if not from eligible voters who are known to have voted?
I will not assume that the answer is simply that there is an error somewhere in the process of counting the number of voters who are known to have voted. Counting voters is easy. If that were the explanation, I believe the counties would have moved heaven and earth to get that answer before January 11. (Unless, of course, the bureaucrats are total idiots -- which would explain their inability to count the number of voters they credited with voting.)
Posted by: Micajah on March 3, 2005 01:42 PM1. It sounds like the your county's software was improperly designed, since there doesn't appear to be a counter in it and it posts a warning at the very first entry of the voters name. But maybe they figured there can be no double absentee votes, because only one barcoded envelope was sent out.
2 "Where did those extra (absentee)ballots come from, if not from eligible voters who are known to have voted?"
One answer is they didn't credit all the absentee voters. Another answer is there were no extra absentee votes. A third answer is there were extra absentee votes and they were from double votes or fraudulent stuffed absentee votes.
What evidence do we need to decide? I don't know, siw. Do you or Sharkansky, since you are far more familiar with the procedures than I am?
Posted by: chew2 on March 3, 2005 02:11 PM