*** For that matter, if the votes were all clean, how would pre-sorting to find a clean sample save them any work? Wouldn't the pre-screening only make sense if they at least suspected discrepancies were there to be found?
(93)
exactly! pick ten cards out of deck seems a whole lot faster than pick two aces, three queens, three sixes (har!), one eight and one nine -- and make sure that you have three hearts and three diamonds, two clubs and two spades.
unless, i knew ahead of time that two aces, three queens, three sixes, one eight and one nine would prevent me from having to tally and retally and retally the results of the first ten-card pick in the future.
can three bad buckeyes spoil the whole bunch? *grumble*
Btw, considering the prosecutor's desire to focus charges as narrowly as possible (on the relatively-innocent "laziness" explanation), and the apparent lack of investigation of other counties, I started wondering how they ended up charged at all, y'know? Then I recalled the scene in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" in which three Ohio poll workers as much as admitted to pre-selecting their "random" sample. Until I check to see whether that was Cuyahoga County, I'm not at all sure...but the possibility exists that these workers got charged only because tape exists of them more or less admitting to the crime.
In any event, the article doesn't seem to suggest that they dispute the charges. And this is, y'know, Ohio 'n' stuff...subject of constant scandal in recent years. The Florida of the heartland! :/
Sure enough :/ajrose93January 26 2007, 01:03:04 UTC
93!
Until I check to see whether that was Cuyahoga County
I checked "Hacking Democracy" again. So it was -- and there are the election workers, on the day of the public "recount": admitting that they selected the precincts to be hand-counted, insisting that's how it was always done.
The dead giveaway that necessitated a prosecution was even simpler than the videotaped admissions, however. On looking over the "random selection" meant to be "publicly recounted" that day, the witnesses immediately noticed that before the recount started, the votes had already been "clumped": the Bush votes were all clumped together, as were the Kerry votes. The original machine count wouldn't produce this result; only a hand count would. By definition, then, the "random public recount" taking place before them that day was staged, a publicity stunt, a complete fraud for public consumption. The votes in question had already been checked to make sure they were "safe." Hence the charges.
Preying on America's Short Attention Spansal93January 26 2007, 18:20:27 UTC
pick two aces, three queens, three sixes (har!), one eight and one nine -- and make sure that you have three hearts and three diamonds, two clubs and two spades.
(93)
oh, here...
let me make it easier... four stacks separated by suit and in order ace to king.
i swear it's random. i didn't tell you which cards have to be which suit... and i didn't tell you what order i put the suits down.
talk about parlor tricks...
xxoo & 93 93/93 -- sal
p.s. thanks for looking it up. i've given up cable tv (arrrgh!), so i am very limited in the diversity of coverage i get. i really appreciate the heads up on these things!
One of the things I love about the Framers of the U.S. Constitution is their clear understanding of human nature, and efforts to thwart its, uhh, less honorable aspect: the famed "checks and balances." Thank heaven we're finally seeing some of this latter in action again, hunh? Not a moment too soon.
This is a good argument for better educated workers. If they coughed up the money for a statistician and a no-nonsense beurocrat (say from the Department of the Treasury) to do such things there would be no such issues.
Hmm. Taken literally, this would mean there is no such thing as human corruption in electoral affairs -- ever -- simply honest misunderstandings. I don't think either one of us has that kind of faith in human nature, let alone in government. ;)
Taking your meaning as "I believe these people acted out of ignorance, not malice," I honestly find three basic problems with that. (1) There were already standard procedures in place for the random count; for whatever reason, they deliberately avoided using them. (2) Google "Ohio" plus "scandal" and I expect you'll find bunches of examples from recent years. Not an excessively clean jurisdiction, alas. And mostly (3) the point I made in my third footnote dealie: IF they assumed the vote count to be honest, why would they NEED to pick and choose their "random" sample? Wouldn't whatever sample they used turn out more or less clean? Apparently they believed that (at the least) it might not
( ... )
Comments 8
(93)
exactly! pick ten cards out of deck seems a whole lot faster than pick two aces, three queens, three sixes (har!), one eight and one nine -- and make sure that you have three hearts and three diamonds, two clubs and two spades.
unless, i knew ahead of time that two aces, three queens, three sixes, one eight and one nine would prevent me from having to tally and retally and retally the results of the first ten-card pick in the future.
can three bad buckeyes spoil the whole bunch? *grumble*
xxoo & 93 93/93 -- sal
Reply
It's in tha cards, baby. ;) Good analogy.
Btw, considering the prosecutor's desire to focus charges as narrowly as possible (on the relatively-innocent "laziness" explanation), and the apparent lack of investigation of other counties, I started wondering how they ended up charged at all, y'know? Then I recalled the scene in the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" in which three Ohio poll workers as much as admitted to pre-selecting their "random" sample. Until I check to see whether that was Cuyahoga County, I'm not at all sure...but the possibility exists that these workers got charged only because tape exists of them more or less admitting to the crime.
In any event, the article doesn't seem to suggest that they dispute the charges. And this is, y'know, Ohio 'n' stuff...subject of constant scandal in recent years. The Florida of the heartland! :/
93 93/93 -- AJ
Reply
Until I check to see whether that was Cuyahoga County
I checked "Hacking Democracy" again. So it was -- and there are the election workers, on the day of the public "recount": admitting that they selected the precincts to be hand-counted, insisting that's how it was always done.
The dead giveaway that necessitated a prosecution was even simpler than the videotaped admissions, however. On looking over the "random selection" meant to be "publicly recounted" that day, the witnesses immediately noticed that before the recount started, the votes had already been "clumped": the Bush votes were all clumped together, as were the Kerry votes. The original machine count wouldn't produce this result; only a hand count would. By definition, then, the "random public recount" taking place before them that day was staged, a publicity stunt, a complete fraud for public consumption. The votes in question had already been checked to make sure they were "safe." Hence the charges.
93 93/93 -- AJ
Reply
(93)
oh, here...
let me make it easier... four stacks separated by suit and in order ace to king.
i swear it's random. i didn't tell you which cards have to be which suit... and i didn't tell you what order i put the suits down.
talk about parlor tricks...
xxoo & 93 93/93 -- sal
p.s. thanks for looking it up. i've given up cable tv (arrrgh!), so i am very limited in the diversity of coverage i get. i really appreciate the heads up on these things!
Reply
That's a no shitter. Personally I believe that ballots that made gore the winner in Florida in 2000 are still in the trunk of Jeb's car.
Reply
LOL! Good one, Brother. ;)
One of the things I love about the Framers of the U.S. Constitution is their clear understanding of human nature, and efforts to thwart its, uhh, less honorable aspect: the famed "checks and balances." Thank heaven we're finally seeing some of this latter in action again, hunh? Not a moment too soon.
Thanks for the reply, sir! :D
93 93/93 -- AJ
Reply
Reply
there would be no such issues
Hmm. Taken literally, this would mean there is no such thing as human corruption in electoral affairs -- ever -- simply honest misunderstandings. I don't think either one of us has that kind of faith in human nature, let alone in government. ;)
Taking your meaning as "I believe these people acted out of ignorance, not malice," I honestly find three basic problems with that. (1) There were already standard procedures in place for the random count; for whatever reason, they deliberately avoided using them. (2) Google "Ohio" plus "scandal" and I expect you'll find bunches of examples from recent years. Not an excessively clean jurisdiction, alas. And mostly (3) the point I made in my third footnote dealie: IF they assumed the vote count to be honest, why would they NEED to pick and choose their "random" sample? Wouldn't whatever sample they used turn out more or less clean? Apparently they believed that (at the least) it might not ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment