Dang It  |   Home  |   Mail

Ballot Counting

John has this bit of news in the comments of an earlier post:

I just got the 4 tally sheets from the village of Germantown.  The form name is form WI-19, the Inspectors’ Report.  The numbers tied out exactly.  The one district where the machine count was 11 less than the 2 poll lists, the inspectors had to count the ballots in the machine’s lock by hand.  It turned out the lock box contained 3426 ballots not the 3415 ballots the software reported.

It turned out the machine software subtracted 1 from the Ballots-cast register when the machine rejected a ballot as damaged or spoiled.  This was exactly the number of damaged ballots for that district.  You should have seen the report attached to the inspctors’ report to explain this discrepancy.

Yeah, Lisa, these discrepancies happen all the time. (tongue firmly in cheek)

According to the MJS in Milwaukee city alone, there are 7,000 “Ghost Ballots”; Ballots with no corresponding elector (as noted by a check mark on both poll lists).  These 7,000 are concentrated in 9 wards. Seven thousand is a significant portion Mr. kerry’s 11,384 ballot (I can’t say vote anymore) victory margin.

It seems to me 7.51(2)(e) requires these “Ghost Ballots” be removed from the official canvass.

Yup.  Keep up the great wrok, John.

 

Posted by Owen at 0733 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. The reconciliation procedure in 7.51(2)(e) does not undo the nature fraud, but it does limit the scope somewhat.  Take a ward where 100 votes were cast; 50 for Bush and 50 for Kerry.  The true result would be 50% Bush, 50% Kerry, 0% Badnarik.

   Now consider the 3 scenarios:
   a)50 ghost ballots for Bush
   b)50 ghost ballots for Kerry
   c)50 ghost ballots for the best candidate, Mike Badnarik.

   This would create the following percentage results and following net gains to be carried up to the municipal, county and state canvasses.
   a)2/3’s Bush (100), 1/3 Kerry (50), and 0/3 (0) for Badnarik (Bush +50)
   b)1/3’s Bush (50), 2/3 Kerry (100), and 0/3 (0) for Badnarik (Kerry +50)
   c)1/3’s Bush (50), 1/3 Kerry (50), and 1/3 (50) for Badnarik (Badnarik +50)

   Using the rules under 7.51(2)(e), 50 ballots of the 150 ballots in the lock box are randomly drawn and not counted in the local board canvass.  This leaves 100 ballots distributed as follows:
   a)2/3’s Bush (67), 1/3 Kerry (33), and 0/3 (0) for Badnarik (Bush +17, Kerry -17)
   b)1/3’s Bush (33), 2/3 Kerry (67), and 0/3 (0) for Badnarik (Bush -17, Kerry +17)
   c)1/3’s Bush (33), 1/3 Kerry (34), and 1/3 (33) for Badnarik (Bush -17, Kerry -17, Badnarik +34)

   As you can see 7.51(2)(e) helps limit the scope for the fraud somewhat, but does not address the underlying injustice much.  The more skewed a district toward the cheating campaign the more 7.51(2)(e) helps to undue the fraud.

   Take a ward where 100 votes were cast; 10 for Bush and 90 for Kerry.  The true result would be 10% Bush, 90% Kerry.
   a)True result: 90% (90) Kerry, 10% (10) Bush; Kerry beats Bush by 80 ballots.

   With 50 ghost ballots for Kerry you get:
   b)Uncorrected fraud result: 93.3% (140) Kerry, 6.7% (10) Bush.  Net result Kerry +50 ballots; Kerry beats Bush by 130 ballots.
   c)Corrected fraud result: 93% (93) Kerry, 7% (7) Bush.  Net result Kerry +6 ballots; Kerry beats Bush by 86 ballots.

   With 50 ghost ballots for Bush you get:
   d)Uncorrected fraud result: 60% (90) Kerry, 40% (60) Bush.  Net result Bush +50 ballots; Kerry beats Bush by 30 ballots
   e)Corrected fraud result: 60% (60) Kerry, 7% (40) Bush.  Net result Bush +60 ballots; Kerry beats Bush by 20 ballots.

   Clearly the take away here is that Republican ghost ballots do the most good in Milwaukee and Republican ghost ballots do the most good in Waukesha.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2005 at 1301 hrs
   
   
   

2. It turns out there may not be as many 7,000 Ghost Ballots.  I was asking Greg Borowski of the MJS about the numbers behind the ward-by-ward map of ghost ballots.

   Here is an excerpt of his response to me:
   
   The story you cite relates to one of the original comparisons [the MJS] did., trying to get at the source of the 7,000 vote gap reflected in the city;s computer records. We compared that to the votes cast at each ward.

   Some of those gaps we have since determined are due to post-election scanning errors. For instance, in the two wards with a 500-plus gap, the polling place log books exactly match the number of ballots.

   In other cases, this does not hold true and gaps remain. In still other cases, there was no listing at the back of the log books of the final voter who came through that day, so there is nothing to reconcile.
   
   So, there may not be 7,000 ghost ballots, but there are ghost ballots. 

   The lack of listing at the back of the log books is yet another problem. (Will they ever stop?)  It seems to me to be a violation of 7.51(2)(a) and 7.51(4).  The first step in the local board canvass is to determine the number of electors who voted.  (Duh!) This number includes the electors who voted in person or absentee; pre-registered or with same-day registration.

   I harp on this local board canvass because it is the first step in the canvass / reporting hierarchy.  The local canvass feeds the municipal canvass which feeds the county canvass which feeds the state canvass.  The non-local canvasses only works with the numbers from the subordinate level.  The procedures for the local canvass are so specific because it is the best time to catch and CORRECT problems and fraud. When 5 people are dealing with less than 4000 ballots, the last resort, the hand counting mandated by statutes, is still feasible if tedious. If the local canvass is screwed up, the error propagates upward. 

   But, John, hand counting a whole ward would be slow and the inspectors may not be done until midnight or later.  Boo hoo!  I am deaf to the complaints of Inspectors spending extra time cleaning up messes their own poor oversight created. Inspectors are Trained, Certified, and PAID to do work on election night.  What kind of certification let’s you work a poll site without knowledge of the procedures you have to follow by law?

   Bias disclaimer.  There is some bitterness on WI poll working since 1994.

   Because of my political affiliations I am barred by state law from working at the polls or being a poll inspector.  Thus, I have been limited to poll watcher as described in 7.41.  Apparently, letting members of the Green Party, the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, or people unaffiliated with any political party be poll workers or poll inspectors would corrupt the integrity of the election process.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2005 at 1104 hrs
   
   
   

3. My contention has been that the local board canvasses in some wards of Milwaukee (and Neehna, Eau Claire, Madison, Kenosha and Racine) might have been performed in violation of State law 7.51.

   It turns out this may be a crime without a criminal penalty.

   Wisconsin state statutes in Chapter 12 are about election fraud and the penalties for it.

   12.13 Election fraud.
   (2) ELECTION OFFICIALS. (a) The willful neglect or refusal by an election official to perform any of the duties prescribed under chs. 5 to 12 is a violation of this chapter.

   12.60 Penalties.
   (1) (a) Whoever violates s. 12.09, 12.11 or 12.13 (1), (2) (b) 1. to 7. or (3) (a), (e), (f), (j), (k), (L), (m), (y) or (z) is guilty of a Class I felony.

   Notice 12.13(2)(a) is not a felony.  Further, 12.13(2)(a) is not referenced at all in the penalty section 12.60.  It is a crime without criminal penalty.  I did not know such a thing existed!

   But, even if the crime carries no criminal penalty, a conviction would still be worthwhile because:

   12.60(3) Any election official who is convicted of any violation of this chapter shall, in addition to the punishment otherwise provided, be disqualified to act as an election official for a term of 5 years from the time of conviction.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 28, 2005 at 1310 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.