Sure they do.
124,031 voters were entitled to cast a 2 card ballot or 248,062 cards.
Hundreds of voters [exactly 349] chose to vote only one card and either discarded the other or tore it up or took it home or just declined to take it. Thus:
248,062 - 349 = 247,713
She’s trying to make the 2 card counting [divided by 2] add up to the actual count for President. It doesn’t work that way when voters can omit some races, throw either portion of the ballot away or leave it blank.
But the hard count for a particular race is the actual number counted by the machines during the process. That number has nothing to do with the 2nd portion of the ballot that is being counted.
One good thing they get to do tomorrow, is recount early votes, wish it was all, but get perhaps, keen insight into Dem county elections? If only they could do that in Philly districts where they threw out the Repub poll watchers.
Open, Transparent, Legal, and Fair. What we all wish for and should expect no less.
BTW, no email from any of the stations again that reported. Just like last month. (didn’t really expect an answer, as i posted on their facebooks and nada either)
I don’t think you can decline to take the whole thing. And tearing up or taking home a ballot doesn’t make sense for anybody, much less 349 people. If people are allowed to do that, there is no way to document whether somebody was ever even GIVEN this or that page of the ballot. That by itself would invite voter fraud - and make a totally unaccountable system where voter fraud would easily be concealed. If this is allowable, the system is a crock from the outset and needs to be investigated for that reason if nothing else.
There were 397 people who undervoted. Of those, 349 hid the 2nd page of the ballot from election workers - going to the extra step of holding that page separate from the other, putting it in their purse, tearing it up, etc? That makes no sense to me.
What was on the first page and what was on the 2nd page?
Another thing that comes into play is the 43 overvotes. That’s 86 cards that would have been handed out but that didn’t result in a Presidential vote. The 124,031 votes counted doesn’t include 86 of the 247,713 cards that were handed out. If you take the 123,591 total votes that were counted x2, it’s 247,182 cards. Add 82 cards for the overvotes that didn’t get counted, and it’s 247,264 cards handed out. They said they had 247,713 cards cast. That’s 449 more cards cast than can be accounted for by the votes counted or by overvotes. Even if all 397 undervotes were from people who voted the 2nd page and didn’t hand in the 1st page (people who ONLY voted for amendments or whatever was on the 2nd card), it would STILL not account for the 449 extra cards cast that didn’t result in a Presidential vote.
If the 397 undervotes turned in both pages the undervotes would account for 794 additional cards cast, besides the ones cast by overvotes 247,264 + 794 = 248,058 That would be 345 more than the 247,713 cards they say were cast.
Shoot. My mind is too tired to dig through the numbers any more.
Another question: Does every precinct have their own software, or is the software statewide? Has St Lucie ever had multiple pages on their ballot before? Having a tabulation column entitled “% Turnout” that doesn’t factor in the number of real people who showed up is negligent for a programmer who knew in advance that each person would have 2 pages.
How did they calculate the number of real people? For instance, how did they know whether person A who only used page 1 and person B who only used page 2 were one person, or two? Did they have serial ID#’s on those ballots, to match page 1 with page 2 for any given voter? They must have, because if they didn’t they’d have no way of knowing who undervoted or not, for those who only voted page 2. If so, then why wouldn’t they simply use the ID/ballot number to calculate the number of voters and thus the “% Turnout”?
See, the whole idea of counting the number of cards doesn’t make sense, rather than having serial ballot numbers that matched on page 1 and page 2, and then figuring out undervotes based on that - since an audit would require you to document how many people had voted (how many complete ballots were handed out to a real person who signed a voter list.
And even when you dig through these numbers, it still doesn’t explain why the early votes initially showed a 2000-vote lead for West and after a “re-count” showed a 2000-vote DEFICIT for West, which is a net difference of 4,000. They found 2,000 votes that they accidentally thought belonged to West when they really belonged to West’s opponent. Yeah, right.
All this together means an investigation is warranted. That’s what West is asking for. The only way these numbers make sense is if they ran a circus where there is no way to audit any of it.