Posted on 03/22/2007 6:06:27 AM PDT by lifelong_republican
"Trung Nguyen's attorneys focused on 124 so-called undervotes — electronically cast ballots on which no candidate was selected — saying that reviewing the paper audit could have shed light on the voters' intentions and whether the electronic recording of those ballots was flawed.
"It seems to defy all logic that someone would travel to the polls on election day and not vote…. These machines make mistakes — sometimes large mistakes," Schroeder said.
Rebecca Mercuri, a forensic computer scientist and expert on electronic voting, testified that clusters of undervotes are a sign of a potential flaw with the electronic vote that could be attributed to electrical glitches in transmission and tabulation or even a static charge coming off a voter's finger.
The paper trail isn't foolproof either. Mercuri said printer malfunctions could leave a voter's intent a mystery. But unlike the electronic vote, they could be challenged and scrutinized the way traditional paper ballots are.
"There is no way to know what 124 undervotes represent without looking" at the paper trail, she said..."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The public should watch those ballots with additional video and other security measures, counted by hand. When we have the technology to review plays in a football game from all angles and with closeups, there's no excuse for ballots getting out of our sight. Scanners can provide rapid preliminary tabulations, but the official counts should be not only verifiable but fully verified.
Americans deserve no less than the most transparent, accurate elections ever seen in human history. Our descendants will thank us for it.
I still fail to understand why the balloting process does not work like the credit card receipt at a diner.
Undervotes are caused by individuals incapable of following simple instructions; they probably should not be voting anyway!
I'd truly like to verify your "lifelong republican" status, because your posts fit the "seminar" caller profile from talk radio.
That way I'd know if I owe you an apology.
Was there only one position on the ballot? More likely, people just didn't vote on that position but had other things they did want to vote on.
It was a special election to fill a vacant seat... it was the only thing on the ballot.
Hehehehe...:) The new chief of LA elections is Dean Logan. Previously he was elections chief of King County. Here in Washington where the previous gubernatorial election was overturned after enough "votes" were found on the 3rd count - 129 votes was the deciding factor.
Coincidence? I think not... For those in LA upset about this, check out http://www.soundpolitics.org and just read about Logan and the crap he pulled - documented cases of more votes than voters, unsigned mail-in ballots being counted, over-votes (two choices in a race) being counted, etc.
Good luck LA - you're gonna need it!
Why do they call these undervotes? I leave blanks on all my ballots and I am sure there are many people out there that also leave blanks. If I do not like either candidate then neither gets my vote!
Yes, I've done that before... but in this case, since this was the only question on the ballot, it means someone took the time to go to the polls and purposefully not vote for anyone.
The corrupt Democrats in Pennsylvania are trying to stop the use of real ballots and their claim is that receipts would be used in vote-selling scams.
Actually, a certain number of undervotes, historically always between 1 and 3 percent, is expected to occur.
The electronics, however, have been found to increase the undervote rates, sometimes to as high as 70-80%.
This isn't about me, and it'd be mere ad hominem fallacy for anyone to attempt to divert that way. The litigant in the subject article is a Republican, too.
Undervote rates are known to soar with implementations of the electronic systems, which not only lose votes but also switch and fake them.
Thank you for the interesting references!
You bring up a good point, Sheana. As Cal Rocket has noted, it occurs with single-issue ballots. Also, as fireforeeffect has said, there should be a choice for "none".
I have always said they need a 'None of the above' slot.
If enough 'none of the aboves' came back they might actually have to find a suitable candidate for a change.
I forgot to add that thought; it should be the last choice on every ballot!
You do realize there are plenty of undervotes in all elections, right? Sometimes you can't hope to find out enough about a candidate (a judge, for example) or find not a dimes bit of difference between the candidates or you only had enough time to study some issues and candidates but not all so you decide not to vote because you believe an UNINFORMED VOTE is a bad thing.
Where some of those votes were found weeks later inside voting booths in a warehouse. How's that for integrity of the chain of custody of ballots?
-PJ
Some time ago California voters had a chance to add the choice "none of the above". It was defeated at the polls.
If I am not familiar with the candidates views I don't vote for either one of them.
I think it would a lot cheaper to add this line to the ballot then spend money on all these investigations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.