Re: OVC-discuss Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10

From: Jerry Lobdill <lobdillj_at_charter_dot_net>
Date: Thu Jul 13 2006 - 06:32:02 CDT

The basic reason to do this IMO is to foster confidence that the
rules are not rigged.

While Gore missed the boat (and conceded defeat prematurely to boot)
there are many situations where candidates are much more closely
familiar with what goes on in a county than a presidential candidate
and believe they have the knowledge necessary to finger suspicious
precincts. Here, in my county, almost every candidate knows that a
certain JP district (encompassing about 60 precincts) has its own
Tammany Hall type operation going. These precincts are very
suspicious, especially their contributions to the mail ballot votes.

Fighting this sort of political machine is an important part of
combatting vote fraud, and I think allowing candidates to select a
precinct for mandatory audit will go a long way toward restoring
confidence in the system.

Jerry Lobdill

At 11:15 PM 7/12/2006, you wrote:
> > Here's the way I see it at the moment: Candidates and their
> > campaigns probably have better information than anyone else about
> > potential fraud in an election. Would it not be fair to allow each
> > candidate to select a precinct for mandatory audit in each county for
> > which he/she is a candidate?
>I disagree with your premise, but still like your solution. Historically,
>candidates have usually been entirely mistaken in where they thought votes
>were miscounted. Consider Gore in 2000 in Florida, who picked the wrong
>counties to recount. If Gore had used mathematical methods to detect
>probable vote count errors, he would have focused more on the opscan
>counties which recount would have given him a victory.
>That said. I agree it is not a bad idea at all to allow candidates to select
>a precinct in each county, or several in each state, to audit.
> > Kathy Dopp
> >
> > National Election Data Archive
> > Dedicated to Accurately Counting Elections

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. ProgressiveNews2Use has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
ProgressiveNews2Use endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers
and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating
pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions
posted on ProgressiveNews2Use may not match the versions our readers
view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon Jul 31 23:17:04 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 23:17:09 CDT