[EL] "Parry" votes

Fri Aug 19 09:06:02 PDT 2011

On 8/18/11, Michael McDonald <mmcdon at gmu.edu> wrote:
> Kind of makes you wonder about the potential for "fraud" when the
> organization running the election will not release the total ballots cast
> and vote counts for individual candidates. If they are willing to control
> the message on candidate vote totals by withholding information, how far are
> they willing to go to control that message?

How about releasing, officially, the exact rule that was applied?  Did
the vote counters deem Parry to be Perry?  Were they instructed on
this issue?  Were all ballots counted (perhaps potential
"Colbert"-votes together with actual misspellings were ignored as
"fraudulent" votes?)   Was there, in such a small count, the realistic
opportunity for different interpretations by different counters?

At least the rules that were intended to be used can be clarified (and
perhaps also the rules that were actually applied), without the need
for the straw poll to reverse course by releasing more numbers and
thus no longer hiding the ball on numbers.

In regular elections, one can not get information as to how ballots
are actually electronically counted and processed on claimed grounds
of trade secrecy, creating a secret vote counting process that
fundamentally lacks checks and balances.  This straw poll illustrates
a further expansion of secrecy into the end-product of elections -
vote count totals.

Voting systems (and their end product of vote totals) have become a
kind of Rorschach test in which people can see most anything they want
to see because nothing much is really there.  The election Pollyanna's
can see faith-based elections in which it is scurrilous to believe
anyone might cheat or make a mistake even though such big stakes are
involved, and the election Fraudsters will see hijinx in each vote
count total that does not favor their expectations for their preferred
candidate or party.  Each side is undoubtedly correct some percentage
of the time, but settling that percentage for each side throws us back
into the Rorschach test.

The problem is the secrecy in the vote counts, the symptom is the
debate about election fraud between various election Pollyanna's and
election Fraudsters, and the solution is data and process disclosure,
with the checks and balances that provides.

But, as it stands, the interpretation of election results, which have
long been appropriately described in occult terms like "reading the
political tea leaves" has been launched into the outer space of the
supernatural by ever-increasing secrecy about how votes are actually
processed.  Entire industries such as election punditry are built on
this teetering facade of data.

If an expert witness in court opined that the election result was
Smith 52% and Wesson 48%, they would be obligated to disclose their
underlying data for cross examination by all other parties in any case
no matter how small. If GM claimed trade secrecy in a products
liability action, they'd routinely be ordered to disclose trade
secrets, at least with a protective order.  But, when the stakes are
highest like in elections, the underlying trade secret data and
processes need not be fully disclosed?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

>
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University
> Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
>
>                              Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Aaron
> Blake
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 9:49 PM
> To: Rick Hasen
> Cc: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu; law-election at UCI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [EL] "Parry" votes
>
> I can verify that the state party did not release write-in votes for anybody
> that got less than 1 percent and wasn't on the ballot. That was the stated
> reason, at least. I suspect they didn't want to give Colbert the
> satisfaction (but that's complete speculation).
>
> Reports at the time also indicated that, depending on the vote-counter,
> "Parry" votes could have been counted for Perry. It was based on whatever
> "vote intent" meant to the vote-counter.
>
> Interesting to note, though: They also didn't say how many write-ins that
> Sarah Palin got. That means that she fell below 1 percent and also could
> have lost to Rick Parry. (Because why wouldn't they report her total if it
> beat Parry)
>
>
> Aaron Blake
> The Washington Post
> The Fix
> www.PostPolitics.com
> blakea at washpost.com
> twitter.com/FixAaron
> 202.503.4669
>
>
>
>
> From:        Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> To:        Lorraine Minnite <lminnite at gmail.com>
> Cc:        "law-election at UCI.EDU" <law-election at uci.edu>
> Date:        08/18/2011 09:33 PM
> Subject:        Re: [EL] "Parry" votes
> Sent by:        law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
> I tweeted about this and a response I got back was that Colbert announced on
> his show earlier this week that the Iowa Republicans would not release the
> information.  (I have not verified this.)  Perry was credited with 718
> write-in votes.  I believe it cost $30 to cast a vote, so I don't know how
> many protest/Colbert votes there would have been at that price.
>
>
> On 8/18/2011 6:30 PM, Lorraine Minnite wrote:
> Does anyone have any information about how many "Rick Parry" write-ins were
> cast in the Iowa straw poll?  I realize "Parrys" may have been counted as
> "Perrys," and that given what people had to do to cast ballots, it's
> unlikely they went to all that trouble and misspelled the name, but I'm
> curious.  Any suggestions for how I can find out - are the full results a
> matter of public record in Iowa?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Lori Minnite
> “Colbert’s ads advocate Rick ‘Parry’ write-in, create a straw-poll mess”
> Posted on August 13, 2011 by Rick Hasen
> This item appeared at the Daily Caller before the results of the Ames straw
> poll were announced.  (I am quoted in the article discussing Colbert as
> performance art.)  This report by The Fix says “Rick Perry” received 718
> (write-in) in votes.  I’ve seen no accounting yet of how many Rick PArry
> votes, if any, were cast.
>
> Posted in chicanery, voting | Comments Off
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org_______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)