Ohio Recount Update

[righteous1]

Just thought I would start this thread so we all have a central place to go and get the latest recount totals as well as see an overview of the counties that are done. Here is what we have so far

Belmont: K + 2 Bush -

Jefferson: K + 5 Bush + 1


Monroe N/C

Harrison N/C

Stark K -1 Bush + 4

Wood N/C

Warren N/C






Brown, Clinton, Hamilton, Medina, Preble, Butler, Lucas, Richland,Sandusky, Seneca, Summit - N/C



Please Update as additional tallys are made available

[nashuaadvocate]

1. Updates also available on The Nashua Advocate.

For those interested in which counties had no change in their 3% count, you can track it there as well. Our coverage is a little different from this thread, which I think focuses -- understandably -- on the "final" results from each county, whether they be hand- or machine-tabulated "final" results.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[Helga Scow Stern]

14. I highly recommend visiting this site to get the real scoop on "recounts."

[Amaryllis]

54. This is a travesty, not a recount! We KNEW it had to be a hand recount....

[KittyWampus]

40. Hi Nashua, You've Got Great, Timely Coverage Of This

and for that we thank you.

[righteous1]

2. Not much of any change

18 counties completed net change JK + 1

[bemis12]

3. If there were 2 million counties

This would project out to a win!

Damn Rove and his hidden counties.

[RaulVB]

12. This is what we need on the forum...

"Smart people..."

[Helga Scow Stern]

16. Yes, to help us trust the recounts.....n/t

[bemis12]

23. And if there were 54 million counties

it would project out to a popular vote victory.

Yeah, you guessed it. I think we just got beat. That's what ALL the evidence in EVERY recount is showing. (I know... they're all rigged.)

[insane_cratic_gal]

5. Arggh

Are these handcounted? Or only a sample count hand count before being run through the "new touched after nov 2nd" triad machines?

[righteous1]

9. These are "completed counties" most

totals matched, so no hand count was done.

[Helga Scow Stern]

18. It was "hard work" getting them to match, but they did it......n/t

[gWbush is Mabus]

4. won't a Diebold machine spit out the same wrong number on a recount???????

[keepthemhonest]

6. yeah

i think it is a bunch of crap to even run them through a machine that is fixed.


If your dryer was broken would you run it through another cycle again or do it the old fashioned way, hang them on the line?

I'd hang mine on the line.

[Straight Shooter]

7. I like your metaphor.

Or is that a simile? An allegory? :freak:

[keepthemhonest]

15. I could not remember whether it was a metaphor ore simile

either, English was not my best subject,but thanks you guys

[AndrewClarke]

34. It's an analogy n/t

[bunny planet]

13. Very good comparison

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. the majorty of the machines

don't seem to be diebold, Now the far as I can see the punchcards which is a mass majority of OH.. they have to be using a tabulator of some sort.


http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/index.html


d) The board must randomly select whole precincts whose total equals at least 3% of the total vote. These precincts’ ballots must be manually counted.

e) Run the manually counted precincts through the computer.

f) If the computer count does not match the hand count, and after rechecking the manual count the results are still not equal, all ballots must be hand counted. If the results of the computer count and the hand counted ballots are equal, the remainder of the ballots may be processed through the computer and results tabulated electronically.

g) At the conclusion of the recount, the program must be retested using the pre-audited test deck

[lonestarnot]

10. TRIAD already busted!

NEED HANDCOUNTS!

[righteous1]

17. That's my understanding, Diebold

is in only 2 counties, which two I don't know

[insane_cratic_gal]

21. County Map of systems used

http://www.yourvotecountsohio.org/index.php?pageLoc=/general/map.html

[gulogulo]

11. Pebble county Kerry - Bush +1

http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041217/NEWS01/412170302/1008

[wlubin]

19. Didn't we pay for a full hand recount? why then are they doing that

3% game? And in fact if every county is not hand recounted in full, doesn't Ohio owe us money?

[righteous1]

20. Somebody needs to post Ohio

statute on this, but from what I have read they are within the law using this recount scheme

[bemis12]

22. There's no rule

requiring a full hand count. We asked for a "recount", and that's what we're getting.

*goalposts moved back into place*

[EMunster]

25. If recount continues to this way, and they succeed in not having to do any

..hand recounts, is Blackwell free to declare all's fine? Sounds if there is no statute, he seems within his rights to do just that. And then are we just left with lawsuits to get the machines examined? Or is there some mechanism already in existence to force that? Or what would be the next step?

[eomer]

36. From Florida 2000 we learned that the recount rules must be in place

prior to the election. The SOS is not free to make up or change the rules after November 2. The rules that were in place on November 2 must be applied. See #35 below for what the rules were on November 2. So no, the current recount is not following the rules and should be litigated. The BOEs should be forced to follow the rules that were in place on November 2.

[eomer]

35. Obviously the prescribed recount procedure is not being followed

The procedure they are supposed to be following is:
1) Randomly select precincts to comprise 3%
2) Hand count the 3% precincts
3) Machine count the 3% precincts
4) If the hand and machine counts match then machine count the whole county
5) If the hand and machine counts don't match then hand count the 3% precincts again
6) If the second hand count matches the machine count then machine count the whole county
7) If neither hand count matched the machine count then hand count the whole county

The precincts are not being selected randomly. They are being hand picked in order to try to force the 3% hand and machine counts to match. This violates both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

Also, in counties where the hand and machine counts do not match they are then going to extraordinary measures such as bring in new machines in order to force the 3% counts to match. Once again, this violates both the letter and the spirit of the rule.

These violations of the rule make the process being followed nothing more than a sham. Apparently there were orders issued that the hand recount must be avoided, no matter what it takes. That leads to the obvious question: what are they hiding?

This process will be litigated so the results you are posting are most probably not the final word.

[righteous1]

37. OK explain to a layman

How would selecting specific precints as opposed to random make any difference. A precint has x amount of votes, the only difference between a hand count and a machine count would be possible hanging chads. Unless someone happened to know that a few specific piles of ballots were free from hanging chads and chose to hand count and machine count those, it seems to me it would not make any difference. The ballot boxes are sealed untill broken open for the recount, and the election of which ballots to count would be done prior to the ballots being unsealed, so the chances that any particular ballots would be "chad free" is practically impossible. What am I missing here?

[eomer]

38. For example,

if the hand picked precincts were selected because someone knew which ones were fraudulent and which ones weren't. That would make a difference, wouldn't it.

The other difference between a hand count and a machine count is the well-known allegation of tampering with the machines to make them count fraudulently. I guess you forgot that issue.

And thanks for mentioning the issue of ballots being kept sealed. According to eye witness reports, those procedures are not being followed either. Yet another reason that litigation will be necessary in order to find the truth.

[righteous1]

39. I don't mean to appear obtuse

but that still does not make sense to me. Regardless of which ballots are selected the "counter" is either going to be off or on concerning the count. ie hand count 100 ballots for Kerry and 100 for Bush, machine counts same ballots and only comes up 80 for Kerry and 120 for Bush. That would mean the machines are skewed. If the machines have been rigged, it doesn't matter which ballots are being counted, it's going to jury rig the count regardless. Which ballots you select is not going to have any affect on whether the hand and machine counts line up, it's the machine calibration that will determine that.

[eomer]

73. Not true.

The machines could be rigged in a variety of ways so that the fraud would not show up in the 3% recount but would be faithfully applied in the subsequent full county machine recount.

One way this could be accomplished is to toggle the recount machine between "true" mode and "fraud" mode. Another way would be for the cards of the 3% precincts to be manipulated in some way so that the fraud would not show up.

All of your numerous arguments on this subject amount to the same thing. You say that the notion of fraud is just silly and there's no reason to really look into it. Fine, that's your opinion. Mine is that there is ample reason to suspect fraud. The blatant rigging of the 3% recount to avoid a full hand recount only fuels that suspicion.

[bemis12]

74. Ummmmm

One way this could be accomplished is to toggle the recount machine between "true" mode and "fraud" mode. Another way would be for the cards of the 3% precincts to be manipulated in some way so that the fraud would not show up.

That's his point entirely. It wouldn't matter which precints you chose if this silly theory was true. Count 3%, any 3% you chose, then slip into "fraud mode".

[eomer]

75. True. Thanks for helping me refine the possibilities.

I agree that having a fraud mode and a true mode that could be toggled at will would mean that you wouldn't need to hand pick the 3% counties.

But that still leaves a myriad of other ways to rig the machine or to rig the cards. It's absolutely possible that the hand picking of the 3% precincts was somehow necessary to hide the fraud. Since the possibilities are practically endless, you cannot disprove this possibility by mere argument. The way to disprove it is to manually inspect the cards for the whole county and then compare with the certified results.

The bottom line is that the recount rules were intentionally violated in such a way as to avoid the full hand recount. Even if the motivation for that violation was relatively innocent, it is still a violation of the recount rules. In effect, the recount has not be done even though they are saying it has been done. It hasn't been done until they do it according to the rules.

Hopefully, if we operate under the rule of law, there will be some way to remedy this and get a recount according to the written recount rules. I, for one, hope that the recount can be redone according to the rules. You, apparently, are happy to have them done by way of a rigged process that just gets it over with as quickly as possible and that sheds as little light as possible.

[bemis12]

77. Actually, I'm not happy at all.

I wish there were going to be a full hand recount. I think that would put to rest the silly idea of rigged machines. If it did the opposite, I'd be even happier, because then there would be a chance for my candidate to win.

[eomer]

78. Great.

We agree on something.

I assume you also agree that most counties went to extraordinary measures to force the 3% hand and machine counts to match.

[bemis12]

79. I do, but

I attribute it to having a real and true desire not to have to go to the pain and expense of a handcount. I'd feel the same way if it were my job to have to do the counting, and I was certain that the "rigged machine" theory was bogus.

[eomer]

80. Fair enough.

That explanation seems plausible to me but I'm also open to other possibilities.

For my part, I would love nothing more than to be able to sit at a table for the next week and examine those ballots one by one. Let me do it for maybe 12 hours a day. I would really like to be a part of such an important endeavor. But I guess that's just me.

[righteous1]

81. Ok, good

That was my point. Everybody was so hung up that the 3% selected votes was somehow significant in promulgating the fraud. Glad this canard is being put to rest. Actually you would not need to hand recount all the ballots, just a surprise spot check of a dozen or so precints and see if they match up with the poll books. That would pretty much answer the fraud question

[demodonkey]

50. The 3% ballots are not only "chad free" they were already sorted in the...

ballot trays BY VOTE CAST FOR PRESIDENT. This for the "randomly picked" precincts. I witnessed this myself. Very upsetting.

(and yes it is reported to the Greens for their records)

Other witnesses I know found ballots & poll books in UNlocked boxes in UNlocked rooms with possible public access from a hallway since Nov 2.

Unbelievable.

BTW, only one county so far has actually pulled the precinct numbers out of a hat or fishbowl as the method of choosing the 3% to count. Others all reported so far were pre-picked. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[righteous1]

52. So you are saying that the Dem and Rep

BOE sifted thru thousands of ballots and 100s of precints to find just the right precincts and just the right ballots within those precincts to be free of hanging chads? I am sorry, having a hard time buying that.

[demodonkey]

53. I am only saying what I saw... the precincts I observed were...

absolutely pre-picked and were definitely pre-sorted before we got there.

And there were NO hanging chads. No even one, in hundred of ballots.

You tell me what the BOE did.

I'm only saying what I saw.


BTW, some of these counties only have a few dozen precincts, not "hundreds".

[righteous1]

55. Was speaking state wide concerning precincts. As far as the BOE

officials, I don't "know" what they did either, but being that they were the ones responsible for recount set up and selection, they would be the ones doing anything nefarious. That would also mean that 100s of Dem BOEs were complicit in a scheme to violate the sanctity of the recount. Does not add up

[demodonkey]

56. BOTH Reps and Dems want to avoid the full recount VERY much...

they just want to get the 3% to match and "get it over with".

Reason given by some is money (it will cost the BOE money they haven't budgeted to pay the workers to do the hand count) and time (some are actually starting to work on next election already, yes they are). Plus it's Christmas. They just don't want the aggravation. You can see it when you talk to them.

The BOE people are not probably the nefarious ones, but by "wanting to get it over with" I believe they may unwittingly be playing into somebody else's nefarious hands.
(OK, that last statement IS opinion -- JMHO.)

[righteous1]

68. But don't you think the Dem BOE officials would want to look

out for what's best for the party?

[demodonkey]

69. I think that they don't really admit or even know they have a problem...

they think that everything is OK (like the BOE lady in Hocking Co who said in the affidavit that she always before had faith and trust in Triad -- wasn't she a Dem?). Some of these BOE people (on both sides) are not all that partisan; they just work on the voting process NOT on who is elected.

And as I said they just want to do what it takes to "get the darn 3% thing to match and get it over with".

[righteous1]

70. Maybe, but thats not giving them much credit for smarts n/t

[eomer]

71. We don't know why the Democratic BOE officials are helping

to fudge the 3% recount. There are numerous possibilities besides the "tired and want to go home" theory. There could be coercion, extortion or bribery. There could also be "Democratic" officials who aren't really Democrats. There could be less nefarious explanations.

It would be interesting to know why they are rigging the 3% recount but in the end that really doesn't matter.

The important point is that they are rigging the 3% recount. No matter who they are or which party they say they are affiliated with, it would seem to me that rigging the recount of an election is illegal.

What is the next step after finishing a recount that was rigged in most counties of the state? I'm hoping it is some process that lets us break through the intentional 3% roadblock and do a full hand recount. That's what would happen if the recount rules were actually complied with.

[EMunster]

24. AP this morning 12-17; Kerry-Edwards witness talks about post-recount...

Kerry-Edwards witness Pat Blochowiak, who believes there are enough uncounted votes in Ohio for Kerry to win, said there are many more challenges that should be made and that the recount is only the beginning. "If this isn't enough, then there's the lawsuit, there's the uncounted provisional ballots, there's the investigation of the absentee ballots," she said.



http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=2704904&nav=5UaiUJzG

[EMunster]

26. AP: 12-17 3:17pm Recount Update

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2004/local/12/17/oh_recount.html

[righteous1]

27. 43/88 completed JK + 119

[KittyWampus]

41. This Is Only 3% Of These Counties, Correct?

and those counties not coming up exact should be fully recounted according to the law?

[righteous1]

42. I have heard varying opinions on "exact"

Some say it has to be dead on, others have said it has to be very close, like within a few ballots. Not sure what precisely is the law

[bemis12]

43. They do NOT have to match up the original vote

Only the 3% hand count and the 3% machine count must match.

And you're confusing terms. All counties are being "fully recounted". They're just not necessarily being "hand recounted".

[righteous1]

44. Bemis, read posts 36 thru 39 and see if i am missing anything TY n/t

[bemis12]

46. No, he's grasping

You're spot on. If the machines are REALLY just going to give whatever results the evil Bush cronies have programmed them to say, it doesn't matter which precincts you count. (I do reject that entire argument as silliness.)

Nor is additional litigation going to force a complete hand recount. Nor would a complete hand recount have any hope of changing the election results in any material fashion.

So far, all of the hand counting that has gone on anywhere has only reinforced the election results. Not to be persuaded, the blame gets shifted to the machines, or even the counters.

The ONLY way to convince some is for Keith Olbermann and John Conyers to personally handcount every ballot. Even then, I fear that the cry would just become one that they had been "got to" by the Republikans.

[righteous1]

48. K....thanx, that's what I thought n/t

[eomer]

72. There hasn't been any shifting of suspicion to the machines...

the suspicion was on the machines from the very start. The intentional rigging of the 3% recount to avoid a full hand recount only reinforces that suspicion by making it look like someone has something to hide.

Regarding your argument that the 3% recount would reveal any fraudulent results no matter which precincts were selected, that would be true only if the rigging of the machines was very crude and simple minded. It would be quite easy to rig the machines so they could be told when to give a true recount and when to give a fraudulent one. Then the 3% machine count would be done in "true" mode and the full recount would be done in "fraud" mode.

As far as what additional litigation is going to force, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. We'll find out soon. But what is known is that the rigging of the 3% recount has avoided shedding any light on the very questions the recount was intended to answer.

[righteous1]

28. Anyone know if Cuyohoga cty is in this total

I have been searching and can't find the answer

[Doremus]

29. Cuyahoga was still counting as of today n/t

[righteous1]

30. 65/88 completed JK + 159

[mdb]

31. At 65 of 88 counties.

3% per county. +159. Wonder how much that would be if it kept up for 100% hand count?

[righteous1]

32. All 100% were recounted. but only 3% were hand counted.

You would have to know how many of those 159 were picked up in the hand count and how many were picked up in the machine recount. If all were picked up in the hand count, it would pro rate out to be 5300 votes if 100% were hand counted

[mdb]

60. Article talking just about this.

-snip-
if these 949 votes came primarily from the 3% hand-recounts, a statewide manual recount (which will never be done, thanks to the many "flawless" recounts itemized in an Advocate article, below) would be expected to accumulate approximately 42,320 new net votes.
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[nashuaadvocate]

63. Thanks, MDB...

...people have been asking/e-mailing The Advocate questions about its methodology for the article you cited. I tried to answer in the sparest terms below, in a post called, "Righteous 1, I respectfully disagree...!" I hope you'll check it out if you (or others) find The Advocate article leaves you with doubts.

Obviously this isn't an exact science -- the point is that the mainstream media's article on the recount wrongly implies that only a trickle of new votes are coming in. Well, as an *absolute* matter that's true, but only because of the "flawless recounts" (see Advocate story) most Ohio counties are returning, which are *conveniently* allowing them to avoid countywide manual recounts. With a full manual recount statewide, many thousands of new ballots would be uncovered, under any statistical scenario. While not enough to swing the election *in and of themselves*, such ballot-changes would help fuel the Votergate story tremendously -- i.e., imagine if a N.Y. Times headline said, "Kerry Gains 18,000 votes among Provisionals; 25,000 votes among Recount Ballots; 155,000 Fraudulent Absentee Ballots and Undervotes Yet to Be Counted"...?

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[nashuaadvocate]

62. See my post below..there's reason to think it was the 3% count that did it

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[Truman01]

45. this is a simple calculation to answer your question

3% per county. +159. Wonder how much that would be if it kept up for 100% hand count?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,


159 / 3%= 5300 votes

TC

[righteous1]

47. Deja Vu all over again LOL n/t

[righteous1]

33. Cuyohoga county completed Bush - 6 Kerry + 17 n/t

[KerryDownUnder]

57. I always find it interesting

when recounts show candidates LOSING votes. I can see votes being found FOR a candidate when they give them a closer inspection or are able to see the condition of a chad or two, but how do you lose votes in a recount and if that doesn't call into question the whole dependability of the machine counts I don't know what does.

[righteous1]

67. Could be an overvote . In other words a clear vote for one and

a hanging chad for the other that becomes dislodged upon recounting and becomes an overvote

[cindyw]

49. According to the math Kerry would need to pick up about 3500 votes

over Bush in the 3% count in order make it possible for him to beat Bush in a full reocunt. Can anyone prove my math wrong?

[righteous1]

51. Well the math is correct but your premise is wrong

The 159 votes Kerry gained were not from just 3%. 100% of the votes are being recounted. 3% are being hand counted and then all are being recounted by machine. JK has picked up 159 votes with roughly 80% of all the ballots having been recounted. It appears as though those votes are not really being picked up so much by the hand recount as they are by the jostling of the ballots because of handling and running thru the machine again that are jarring loose a few hanging chads

[nashuaadvocate]

61. Righteous 1, I respectfully disagree...!

...though I do see your point and understand why you say what you say. Here's my take --

The AP is reporting that chads came off both because of the 3% hand- and the 97% machine-recounts. A Summit County Deputy Director of Elections, however, says it was because of the "handling" of the ballots, and makes no mention of the machines causing any chads to dislodge.

Consider: which theory makes more logical and pragmatic sense? The machines are specifically *designed* not to shake loose any chads which should not be shaken loose. In contrast, "ballot-prepping" is a human intervention apparently every county has used pre-3% count: in order to shake loose any spare chads and thereby *ensure* the machine and hand counts will match. .

I think we can assume that most -- albeit not all, but most -- of the new ballots "found" came from manual handling of the ballots, the sort of manual handling which is central to a manual recount, but incidental to a hand recount.

The News Editor
The Nashua Advocate
http://www.nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[righteous1]

65. Afraid we are just going to have to disagree on this one

ABC News reports "Officials said hanging chads that came loose when punch-card ballots were handled again or rerun through tallying machines account for most of the additional votes". And if you re-read the AP story, it says essentially the same thing. I believe that your right the machines are designed not to dislodge and "intact" but I believe would have the opposite effect on a partially dislodged chad

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=341021

[Doctor O]

66. I gotta agree with Righteous on this one,

the ballots, even those that were machine counted, were handled when they sorted these. I tried to source3e the document, but there were reports where is showed one or two votes changed during the hand count, and then more changed during the machine count. What you are also not taking into consideration is that they were also counting the so called spoiled votes which were actually over / under votes where there either was no vote for Pres or multiple holes punched for Pres.

I believe if you read the articles over at votecobb.com it may indicate some of this. But your math to pick up 10,000 's plus the over/under is not going to produce. At the most after counting the votes and the over/under they will find about 2,000 new votes max.

[buddysmellgood]

58. Van Wert Kerry +1

[Helga Scow Stern]

59. Discussion of "New" Votes Uncovered

News: Election 2004: New Data on Associated Press Tally of "New" Votes Uncovered in Ohio Hand- and Machine-Recounts
By ADVOCATE STAFF

In an article slated for release at 12:01 A.M. on Saturday, December 18th, the Associated Press will report that, with 74% of votes recounted from the November 2nd, 2004 election, 949 new net votes have been uncovered.

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/

[zann725]

64. Didn't the Repugs have 6 weeks since Nov 2 to further 'tamper' the votes?

Ughh!

[berniew1]

76. But these don't take the vote machine fraud into account; see links

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=176532&mesg_id=176532

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x177375

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=176637&mesg_id=176637