Courage Campaign Demands that Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Count All "Double Bubble Trouble" Votes
|
|
| Also listed in: Courage Campaign Staff |
Comments |
Mail to a Friend
Tags: Dean Logan, double bubble trouble, DTS, Election 2008, Election Integrity, Los Angeles
Tags: Dean Logan, double bubble trouble, DTS, Election 2008, Election Integrity, Los Angeles
Acting Registrar of Los Angeles County Dean Logan has issued his 21 page report on preliminary findings regarding the double bubble trouble.
His full report in pdf form can be found here.
A brief summary from the report goes like this:
In response to the report, Rick Jacobs has issued a statement, which can be seen on the flip in its entirety.
His full report in pdf form can be found here.
A brief summary from the report goes like this:
In conducting the review and analysis, three central findings have emerged. First, although any quantification is significant, the universe of ballots impacted by the cross-over issue has been found to be much smaller than the number that has been reported in the media since Election Day. Second, the limitations of our voting system and the ballot design impede an ability to determine voter intent on those ballots that were impacted; and third, a clear need exists to immediately modify the ballot layout and voting procedures to facilitate cross-over voting in a manner that does not require additional steps on the part of the voter.
In response to the report, Rick Jacobs has issued a statement, which can be seen on the flip in its entirety.
Mr. Logan has erred. Every single vote cast last Tuesday must be counted. He must immediately take two steps:
1. Tally every single DTS ballot--some 94,500--to see how many voters intended to vote for president.
2. Count ever vote for president on those ballots.
As we have said since the election, Mr. Logan and the county have at their disposal the means to count the votes and ascertain voter intent in nearly all cases. Anything short of that is unacceptable disenfranchisement of LA County voters.
Mr. Logan can save the county time and money by counting the votes now rather than subjecting the county to lawsuits and protracted engagements over an issue that he can solve in the next few days, well before the election is certified.
Nearly 25,000 people have signed our online petition demanding that the votes be counted; this is but the tip of the iceberg. With record turn out, Mr. Logan has a duty to the public to count the votes.
Let us suppose that non-partisan voter A expresses a desire to vote in the American Independent primary. He is given a non-partisan ballot and directed to the American Independent voting booth, where he marks bubble #9, a vote for "Mad Max Rieske". But he fails to mark bubble #5, which is the indication that he, as a non-partisan, is choosing to 'cross-over' into the American Independent primary. So, bubble #9 marked, but not bubble #5.
Let us also suppose that non-partisan voter D expresses a desire to vote in the Democratic primary. He is given a non-partisan ballot and directed to the Democratic voting booth, where he marks bubble #9, a vote for Barack Obama. But he fails to mark bubble #6, which is the indication that he, as a non-partisan, is choosing to 'cross-over' into the Democratic primary. So, bubble #9 marked, but not bubble #6.
Two ballots, each with bubble #9 marked, each with neither bubble #6 nor bubble #6 marked. Ballots that are utterly, 100% identical in every way. No way at all to trace the two ballots back to voter A or voter D.
Tell me how, explain to me how, "Mr. Logan and the county have at their disposal the means to count the votes and ascertain voter intent" and I will immediately and gladly sign your petition.
Will you now sign our petition?
Rick Jacobs.
We should also note the possibility raised by Mr. Logan in his report (the third paragraph of the Conclusion, page 5), of the non-partisan who, after telling the pollworker that he/she did not intend to "cross-over", then makes a mark on the ballot in the 'presidential range' of positions 8 through 15 while using a voting booth other than the Dem, AI or NP; eg. the Republican booth. (Why would a non-partisan be using the Republican booth? Well, if he had said he wasn't crossing over - that is, he was supposedly only voting the propositions - he would then be allowed to use any booth, particularly if the Republican booth were the only available at that moment. An unusual occurance, to be sure. I don't think we had that circumstance come up on Tuesday, but I have seen it happen in the past.)
As for positions 11 through 15: There is certainly a stronger arguement to be made for 'clear intent' for positions 11 through 15 (as opposed to 8 through 10, the positions that overlap on the Dem and AI ballots), and it doesn't depend on the notations in the Roster of Voters. But do you seriously think you'd be able to get all the parties involved - the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign, the Gravel campaign, the campaigns of the three AI candidates, the Dem party, the AI party - to agree that ballots with a mark in positions 11 through 15 (and without marks in either 5 or 6) WILL be counted while ballots with marks in 8 through 10 (without marks in 5 or 6) WON'T be counted, all in the same precinct? The precinct I was working, that would be asking the Obama campaign to allow Clinton votes (position 15) while disallowing Obama votes (position 9), on the theory that in some other precinct, the positions would be (more or less) reversed such that some degree of 'baance' or 'fairness' would be maintained?
I remain thoroughly unconvinced. Care to try again?
If there's an agreement that better represents more voters' intent, I think the parties involved will agree. Everybody involved understands that confidence in a free and fair voting system is crucial for democracy. Nobody in any party wants to deal with another four years of arguing about whether an election was stolen.
jon
As for Mad Max Rieske, I'm not sure what office or party he's running for ... my inclination would be to give him his choice as to whether or not he wanted them counted in the Democratic primary. In any case, it's not relevant to whether or not to count the other votes where intent is clear.
jon
jon
In addition what about the ballot reader? Wasn't it supposed to check for errrors? That is what the county asked us to tell the voters. What is the ballot reader REALLY doing?
I am a volunteer pollworker and feel cheated by the county. We had soo many provisional ballots in our precinct. Who do we talk to about that?
Thanks
While I assume, the scanners could be, or could have been, programmed to look for the 'double bubble' problem, last Tuesady they were not.
I know that some poll workers who were completely well versed and really prepared for this election, were STILL confused and some did not get it right regarding cross over voters. So of course, a re-design of the ballots and cross over voting procedures in the future will most likely be called for.
I bet it was hard as a poll worker to stay on top of voters who like me, were un-educated and did not even carefully read the materials and sample ballots (even if confusing) provided in advance. However, I think one reason a lot of people may not even vote is simply because it's just all too confusing.
DTS voters being able to ask for the party ballot of their choice and those ballots having no extra bubbles, is what makes the most sense to me. Also, training for poll workers should be mandatory, not optional.
CNN's primary election results for Los Angeles County: Link
Clinton = 658,937
Obama = 496,192 + 94,500 hypothetical DTS votes = 590,692
Edwards = 25,135
Clinton still wins Los Angeles County.
Clinton still wins California.
The LA county congressional district with the closest result from Tuesday is the 30th district, where Clinton beat Obama by 3.6%, or by a little under 5000 votes.
There were about 135,000 votes cast in the 30th district, out of about 1.8 million cast in all of LA County, or about 7.5% of the total. If we use the estimate that Mr. Logan came up with in his report of about 49,500 ballots marked in error in LA Country, 7.5% of 49,500 is about 3700 'erroneous' ballots in the 30th district.
So even if every one of those 3700 were a vote for Obama, it wouldn't change the 'winner' in the 30th district.
(But if delegates are allocated proportionally within a given district, it might cause a change of a delegate or two within the 30th. I don't know if that is the case or not. I can pass along that California Party spokesman Bob Mulholland was quote in the LA Times on Monday saying that the uncounted votes were unlikely to affect the division of delegates between Obama and Hillary.)
So Chris' point is valid, even if he was looking at the wrong segment and division of ballots.