Replies

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.