Can anyone explain these strange totals from Ashland County log books?

[berniew1]

{Poll books- looked at briefly- just noted number of voters penciled in by staff on election day-
I can find no explanation for why there were none offered to us from Greene TWP 1 and Lake TWP. Further note —— The numbers of precincts and the names of precincts did not exactly
match the list on the Precinct Status Report 11/02/2004 that we were handed earlier. did not have time to look at signatures }
Some Precinct totals in the log books were strange:


PRECINCT REC'D CAST SPOIL PROV TOTAL
(others not listed here matched #s)
001 1A 700 557 2 0 =141
002 1-B 600-R 354-C 3-S 6-P
003 1-C 520-R 291 3-S 5-P =282
009 2-C 369-R 450-C 3-S 6-P =360
033 GREENE TWP 2 DID NOT SEE THIS
034 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 2 520-R 327-C 0-S 13-P =167?
035 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 3 500-R 381-C 3-S 6-P =110
036 HANOVER TWP 550-R 461-C 3-S 5-P =80
037 POLK VILLAGE 250-R 166-C 2-S 5-P =77
038 JACKSON TWP 1 800-R 605-C 3-S 11-P =181
039 JACKSON TWP 2 850-R 643-C 3-S 1-P =203
040 LAKE TWP DID NOT SEE THIS
041 MIFFLIN 1 225+50+50-R 298-C 0-S 4-P =76+17+30
042 MIFFLIN 2 325+30+50-R 282-C 2-S 4-P =82+11+22
043 MILTON TWP 1 400-R 319-C 8-S 3-P =69
044 MILTON TWP 2 530-R 465-C 3-S 7-P =55
045 MILTON TWP 3 475-R 392-C 4-S 5-P =74
046 JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE 325-R 222-C 2-S 2-P =79
047 MOHICAN TWP 1 490+10-R 419-C 0-S 9-P =65+7
048 MOHICAN TWP 2 440-R 357-C 1-S 11-P =71
049 MONTGOMERY TWP 1 490+10-R 419-C 0-S 9-P =65+7
050 MONTGOMERY TWP 2 250+100 258-C 2-S 1-P =73+16
051 MONTGOMERY TWP 3 420+10-R 362-C 2-S 3-P =57+6
052 MONTGOMERY TWP 4 475-R 357-C 2-S 3-P =111
053 ORANGE TWP 1 435+15-R 354-C 2-S 6-P =82+6
054 ORANGE TWP 2 450+20-R 367-C 1-S 2-P =87+13
055 ORANGE TWP 3 450+10+40-R 384-C 1-S =88+5+15
056 PERRY TWP 1 300+200+30-R 418-C 1-S 6-P =39+55+11
057 PERRY TWP 2 385 +100+170-R 438-C 3-S 5-P =108+36+65
058 RUGGLES TWP 475 + 10-R 444-C 3-S 1-P =34+3
059 SULLIVAN TWP 1 620-R 513-C 4-S 7-P =92
060 SULLIVAN TWP 2 500-R 375-C 1-S 3-P =120
061 TROY TWP 690-R 558-C 0-S 5-P =127
062 HAYESVILLE TWP 300-R 219-C 0-S 1-P =79
063 VERMILLION TWP 1 440-R 351-C 3-S 6-P =79?
064 VERMILLION TWP 2 400-R 329-C 3-S 4-P =61?
65 VERMILLION TWP 3 440-R 359-C 3-S 4-P =79

Respectfully submitted by Witness J. (Greens)

[berniew1]

1. Rest of the Green recount report

Ashland County Optical Scan
http://www.votecobb.org/recount/ohio_reports/counties/ashland.php
3% sample not random(chosen by county)(no one seemed to know how to do random sample)
Ballots stored in open containers in staff snack room accessable to staff
{Significantly, missing from the ballot instructions is anything referring to erasures. This is important because erasures are counted as over-votes and not counted as a valid vote. There was no clarity about this on the ballot.
This year's was so confusing that there were 530 over-votes, as compared to 2000 when there were only 166 (a difference of 364 votes). This may sound confusing but bear with me, and look at both samples first. It was determined (by some estimating among the 4 witnesses present) that about 80% of the over-votes were indeed clear about the intent of the voter.}
{Confusing ballot design caused rejection of lots of votes with clear voter intent:
However, due to the odd way that the bottom group of candidates (president and vice-president) was placed on top of the write-in space, many, many people filled in both the
president and the write-in while leaving the space blank .}
{Ballots filled in ink had been rejected by machine, but SOS ruled that in recount they could be counted since intent was clear}
{Absentee ballot design extremely confusing- unlikely most voters would know how to fill them out- errors likely- placement of circles by vice pres. candidate likely to produce misvotes}
{Provisional Ballots 631 total 554 counted 77 not counted
(no access to records to confirm why votes not counted- most appear due to inability to confirm registration)}

[TexasLawyer]

2. Really confusing

You're right about these numbers. It seems as if there is a huge disparity in every precinct between votes "received" and votes "cast." (Also, I don't even know what the difference is between a vote "received" and a vote "cast". Shouldn't they be the same thing?) Maybe it is supposed to say "Reg'd," as in number of voters "registered" in the precinct. Who knows? I will assume that the read-out means "received," like it says, and that there were 800 ballots and 605 had votes in the presidential race.

But the numbers are still hard to understand. For example:

038 JACKSON TWP 1 800-R 605-C 3-S 11-P =181

How could there have been almost 200 ballots that didn't vote for president (or for some other reason were not part of the total)?

Also, what is the "total" a total of? You can get to the number 181 by taking the difference between votes received and votes cast (195) and then subtracting the spoiled votes (3) and all of the provisionals (11). But why would anyone want that calculation? (other than to gawk at how many votes didn't count).

Or maybe "total-181" is the number of votes that DID count (and "cast" actually means "cast aside"). Then these are really disturbing totals, since it would mean that out of 800 people who came in to vote, 605 had an invalid vote for president, 3 ballots were spoiled and all provisional ballots were ruled invalid. That would mean 80% of the votes were no good. Surely that is not the right interpretation of these numbers.

I also wonder why almost all the votes "received" end in a "0" or a "5" (i.e., are multiples of 5). Were they rounding numbers off? They shouldn't have been.

Very mysterious. Maybe the county officials can walk you through it.

[Yellow Horse]

3. From a Recount Coord -- Maybe I can help...

This is what it looks like to me (based on what I saw and learned in my own counties)

"Precinct" = the precinct number

The Number "Received" is the number of ballots that were sent out to the precinct from the BOE.

"Cast" = the number of regular voters who voted on those ballots.

"Spoiled" = number of those ballots where the voter made a mistake and asked for another ballot, etc.

"Provisional" = number of those ballots used by voter(s) who had to vote on a provisional basis (i.e. their name was not in signature book, or something similar)

"Total" = total remainer of ballots that were unused. (Subtract "Cast", "Spoiled", and "Provisional" from "Received" and you SHOULD get "Total".) Looks like some precincts on the above list may have had some, um, "sloppy" math, though...

Hope this helps. :-)

Marybeth

--------
Marybeth Kuznik
Eastern OH / PA Border Area Regional Coordinator
Green Party Ohio Recount 2004

[berniew1]

6. I understand what the columns are. But the math is way off? Why??

[mirandapriestly]

8. so ballots received are not votes?

Are you saying that ballots received were empty ballots provided to the precinct rather than votes?

[Yellow Horse]

10. Precincts and BOEs are supposed to keep records of...

all ballots distributed, both used and unused.

So yes, that's what this list looks like to me. The ballots "received" were the blank ballots sent out by the BOE and received by the precincts.

Why some of the precincts are so badly off with their math as to what happened with those ballots, I can't say what the reason or motive could be.

I do know, as a pollworker myself, it is easy to make mistakes at the end of a 15-hour day. But geesh, in my poll we try to check each other and correct things before we leave the poll, no matter how tired we are. Some pollworkers do have a "get it done any old which way and get the H out of here" attitude. Still there should be no excuses for wrong math -- wouldn't fly at my own poll.

FWIW, I don't think this list has a whole lot to do with the final certified result of the vote or of the recount... looks like it was probably provided by somebody maybe trying to be "helpful" and "cooperative" to the recounters?? But, OTOH even a few extra blank ballots floating around could theoretically be put to mischief!

Just another of the many reasons the whole darn thing needs more investigation and changes need to be made.... IMHO.

Marybeth

--------
Marybeth Kuznik
Eastern OH / PA Border Area Regional Coordinator
Green Party Ohio Recount 2004

[thanatonautos]

13. Amen ... and thanks for your efforts! n/t

[ClintCooper2003]

4. Perhaps you should make a chart out of them. This is kind of

incomprehensible to me.

[thanatonautos]

5. A brief examination of the numbers.

So definining R'= T + P + S + C and adding up the numbers I get the following
table. That is P + S + C is the total number of ballots counted, which
should add to the total number of ballots left over, to give the total
number of ballots received.

R' = (T + P + S + C) R (R'-R)

001 1A 700 700 0
002 1-B ? 600 ?
003 1-C 581 520 +61
009 2-C 819 369 +450
033 GREENE TWP 2 DID NOT SEE THIS ? ? ?
034 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 2 507 520 -13
035 LOUDONVILLE VILLAGE 3 500 500 0
036 HANOVER TWP 549 550 -1
037 POLK VILLAGE 250 250 0
038 JACKSON TWP 1 800 800 0
039 JACKSON TWP 2 850 850 0
040 LAKE TWP DID NOT SEE THIS ? ? 0
041 MIFFLIN 1 425 325 +100
042 MIFFLIN 2 403 405 -2
043 MILTON TWP 1 399 400 -1
044 MILTON TWP 2 530 530 0
045 MILTON TWP 3 475 475 0
046 JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE 305 325 -20
047 MOHICAN TWP 1 500 500 0
048 MOHICAN TWP 2 440 440 0
049 MONTGOMERY TWP 1 500 500 0
050 MONTGOMERY TWP 2 350 350 0
051 MONTGOMERY TWP 3 430 430 0
052 MONTGOMERY TWP 4 473 475 -2
053 ORANGE TWP 1 444 450 -6
054 ORANGE TWP 2 470 470 0
055 ORANGE TWP 3 493 500 -7
056 PERRY TWP 1 530 530 0
057 PERRY TWP 2 655 655 0
058 RUGGLES TWP 485 485 0
059 SULLIVAN TWP 1 616 620 -4
060 SULLIVAN TWP 2 499 500 -1
061 TROY TWP 690-R 690 690 0
062 HAYESVILLE TWP 299 300 -1
063 VERMILLION TWP 1 439 440 -11
064 VERMILLION TWP 2 397 400 -3
65 VERMILLION TWP 445 440 +5


Precinct 009 (2-C) has a +450 discrepancy, which looks like it probably arose
because the recorder wrote the number of ballots received R in the column for
the number of ballots cast C, and vice-versa.

(look carefully at the first two numbers, 009 2-C 369-R 450-C 3-S 6-P =360,
and consider that ballots received is everwhere else a round number)

Precinct MIFFLIN-1 has a +100 discrepancy, which may be explainable
if a simple writing error was made in recording the number of ballots
received.

(041 MIFFLIN 1 225+50+50-R 298-C 0-S 4-P =76+17+30)

If instead of 225+50+50 the number received were actually
325+50+50, it might explain this one. This would make
MIFFLIN 1 look more like MIFFLIN 2.

042 MIFFLIN 2 325+30+50-R 282-C 2-S 4-P =82+11+22

Precinct 1-C has too many ballots left over, and it's not
easily explainable by a simple writing error, I think.

003 1-C 520-R 291 3-S 5-P =282

299 ballots cast, 520 received. There should have been 221
left over, instead there are 282.

This one looks pretty suspicious.

Precinct JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE has -20 discrepancy, and
might be explainable as a one digit writing error:

046 JEROMESVILLE VILLAGE 325-R 222-C 2-S 2-P =79

Substitute 345 for 325, or 202 for 222 and thes numbers
would tally.

The rest of the discrepancies are smaller and probably
harder to explain as simple errors in writing down the
numbers.

But there's quite a bit of sloppiness here. These
numbers really should tally.

I presume that all unused ballots are returned after an election. These
numbers really should be checked against the actual returned, unused ballots,
and used ballots, as well as, of course, being checked against the number of
votes recorded in the presidential election.

[berniew1]

7. So does this imply election hanky-panky or election worker sloppy??

For the other precincts reported on log books
T was sum of cast + provisional + spoil , confusing;
different systems

Would the negative differences imply possible ballot stuffing?

[berniew1]

9. How about if you see that the Green Report gets clarified?

The person doing recount for Greens at Ashland didn't understand what the numbers were. Due to the 2 different interpretations of T in different precincts.

Aren't the negative differences the ones to worry about?
The possible ballot stuffing?

[Yellow Horse]

11. There is one other possible explanation.

There are two kinds of provisionals in Ohio,

1) the regular provisional, voted at the regular precinct by a voter who for some reason doesn't show up are being registered (or who is challenged as to identity, etc)

2) a provisional voted AT THE COUNTY BOE OFFICE by a voter who is moving his or her registration in from another county in Ohio. Doing this changes the voter's registration to the correct new county and precinct where they will vote for future elections. These change-of-registration provisionals are entirely handled in the BOE Office and are NOT handled by, or sent to, the voter's precinct for this election. But they ARE counted in with the final election results of their correct precinct.

If these change-of-registration provisionals done at the BOE Office are included in the ballots "received" for that precinct, but not in the regular provisionals voted AT the precinct, it COULD explain small discrepancies.

Or this could, theoretically, be used to hide a little hanky panky also.

Again, more investigation is needed.

Marybeth

[thanatonautos]

12. Negative versus positive.

To me it seems that the negative differences imply
that there are less total ballots at the end of the
voting than there were at the beginning, that is,
the number I called R' is less than R, assuming
that all of the counting was done correctly
and it isn't just sloppiness.

So that means ballots were lost somewhere, possibly
thrown away. But you can't tell from which category
the ballots were lost, just by looking at these
numbers. They could have been lost from C, from S,
from P or from T.

A positive difference implies that there were more
total ballots at the end of the voting than at the
beginning, so that could mean that ballots were added in.
But again, you can't really tell into which category they
were added, so you can't say that there was stuffing
for sure.

To say whether there was stuffing or throwing away
of votes, or just accounting errors, you really
have to now look at the actual ballots that were
returned to the county boe and see what the story
is, and probably it would be good to also look at
the signatures on the roll books.

If there is precinct level data on the votes published,
there are some additional checks to do. There are two
things that would raise my suspicion: first, are the
precincts with errors preferentially precincts that vote
for one particular candidate? Second the number of
votes recorded in the officially tally in every precinct
should be less than or equal to P+C.

There should also be a central registry, I suppose
which says how many ballots were sent out to each
precinct, and how many came back at the end of the
day. Those numbers should be consistent with the
precinct numbers

Conservation of ballots is one of the most basic
checks on consistency I think. Ballots should
not be disappearing into or appearing out of
nowhere.

So if something is wrong here, you've really got to
check everything.

Overall, there are 1-2% inconsistencies in about
half of the precincts, though there are a couple
of cases where the discrepancies are larger.

Is the precinct level vote available anywhere?