Re: Ms. Tobi's overheated rhetoric

From: <dr-jekyll_at_att_dot_net>
Date: Sun Nov 11 2007 - 20:39:24 CST

I do not believe it is a problem to find enough people to count ballots by hand.
When I counted ballots in New Hampshire, the town added extra people to count the votes after the polls closed. We got there as the polls closed and had all the votes counted in a short time. It was cost effective, too. We were paid only for the time it took to count the votes.
The Grand Jury that investigated election fraud in Chicago in 1908 recommended that there be a law something like a call for jury duty for vote counters to be used if necessary. I think there must have been at least one genius who served on that Grand Jury.

This email sent using 100% 
recycled electrons.
-------------- Original message from Arthur Keller <>: -------------- 
> Dear Arlene, 
> Suppose we had a system for hand-marked and hand-tallied ballots. 
> Should we avoid using forensic techniques to determine if ballots 
> were fraudulently altered because many people don't understand the 
> science behind the forensics. Or should we avoid using statistical 
> techniques for detecting ballot stuffing in a post election audits 
> because many people don't understand the statistics? 
> I served as a Precinct Inspector in the November 2007 election in 
> Santa Clara County. One of my assigned poll workers dropped out a 
> few days before, and I was told there was a shortage of poll workers. 
> I was the only poll worker who was there the entire day. I had three 
> poll workers for the first half of the day, one poll worker for the 
> second half of the day, plus two spare poll workers who showed up mid 
> morning and stayed for the rest of the day. This shortage was for an 
> election that was run in only small parts of the county. 
> Advocates of hand-counted paper ballots often claim that there will 
> be plenty of vote counters to do the job. I can tell you that poll 
> workers who start at the polls at 6 a.m. are not able to do the job. 
> (I had one of the "spare" poll workers count the signatures on each 
> page of the roster index and then transcribe the numbers onto the 
> summary sheet in the back of the roster index. The poll worker 
> missed some signatures and counted as voters the entries I had 
> hand-marked as vote-by-mail. The hand-marked entries were the list 
> of people who had been sent vote-by-mail ballots after the roster 
> index was printed, and the Precinct Inspector marks those voters as 
> "vote-by-mail" so they are to vote provisionally if they do not 
> surrender their absentee ballots.) Given the shortage of qualified 
> poll workers, I wonder where the ranks of vote counters will come 
> from. 
> Here's my challenge to the hand-count paper ballot advocates. Don't 
> wait until hand-counting is adopted to demonstrate the size of the 
> cadre of vote counters. Get them to volunteer now as poll workers. 
> Poll worker experience is most useful to be a vote counter. 
> Also, please tell me how you will avoid vote counters who are 
> "bi-partisan in name only" and who count fraudulently or alter or 
> stuff ballots in the precinct. (Oh, you'll rely on statistical 
> post-election audits or electronic surveillance?) 
> We will have a real problem with the February 2007 Presidential 
> Primary Election in California. Turnout will be huge. Many counties 
> will use hand-marked paper ballots with just one DRE per precinct. 
> Take the ten or so parties, each of which will have its own 
> candidates, and multiply that by the number of languages (minus 1, 
> because English and Spanish are on the same ballot), and you get lots 
> of stacks of ballots for poll workers to juggle. In the days of 
> punched card ballots in Santa Clara County, the multiple languages 
> were handled by different sets of instructions for the common ballot. 
> For last week's election I had 4 stacks of ballots (English/Spanish, 
> and smaller stacks for English and the other 3 languages in my 
> county). Even with Democratic, Republican, and Green, that's 12 
> stacks of tabloid sized ballots. For 10 parties, that's 40 stacks of 
> ballots to handle. 
> No wonder Registrars of Voters are pushing vote by mail. Fewer 
> voters at the polls means shorter lines for poll workers. 
> About voter preference, 106 voters cast ballots in my polling place. 
> Each of them was offered a choice of "paper or plastic (i.e., 
> electronic)" ballot. Fifteen chose paper ballots, and 91 chose 
> electronic ballots. Three voters surrendered their vote-by-mail 
> ballot and voted electronically. Some people were reassured because 
> our electronic ballots were accompanied by a paper trail. 
> In a few days, I will write up more of my experiences as a poll 
> worker this time. My report on the November 2006 election (where the 
> paper trails ran out) was posted to this list last year. 
> Best regards, 
> Arthur 
> At 7:48 PM -0500 11/8/07, Arlene Montemarano wrote: 
> >Mr. Cherlin, we will never agree. I had my say and you don't 
> >agree. I think your approach is probably wonderful, but if people 
> >like me cannot comprehend what you are doing, it is not appropriate 
> >for voting. 
> > 
> >So let us not proceed with this exchange. It is already becoming testy. 
> > 
> >Thanks though, for all your hard work on the issue. It is apparent 
> >that you are dedicated to the effort. 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507 
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424 
> _______________________________________________ 
> OVC-discuss mailing list 
> By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the 
> content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted 
> material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at 

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:15 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST