[EL] Question about reporting on 2012 election voting
Jason Torchinsky
jtorchinsky at hvjlaw.com
Mon Jan 7 06:21:17 PST 2013
The St. Lucie County, FL results are interesting - and the returns from the that county are problematic. The county used optical scan ballots and because of the number of candidates and number of ballot measures, the county had a two card ballot. Their reporting system reported "card counts" instead of voters on some of the reports, making it appear that voter turnout was too high until you have a good understanding of what the system was actually reporting. Card counts should be two times the number of voters.
For those of you interested in seeing more on St. Lucie County's election administration issues (bad memory cards, upload problems, missing poll books, staff poorly trained to handle issues, ballots not scanned, etc.), see this report from the Florida Division of Elections:
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/St_Lucie_County-Election_Observation_Report_Nov_14-18_2012.pdf
- Jason Torchinsky
(Disclosure - I was counsel to one of the candidates involved in the post-election wrangling over the counts there)
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of bzall at aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:13 AM
To: tpotter at capdale.com; adam at boninlaw.com
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Question about reporting on 2012 election voting
Well, I was going to let the original inquiry go, thinking it just an inquiry about the spread of inaccurate information. Perhaps Trevor hasn't seen the commercial about the girl who found her new "French" boyfriend on the Internet? "Bon Jour." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmx4twCK3_I.
But, traumatized like millions of Washington fans by the sight of a couple of knee ligaments giving way last night, I guess I should respond to the always-entertaining Trevor's use of a random "Internet Stupid" to make a point: "it would appear difficult to fact-check that sort of information, which to me illustrates one of the problems with our increasing national exposure to essentially anonymous and unauthenticated information."
The problem is not anonymity or the likelihood of exposure of falsity. I know very well who Kathryn Bigelow is; I've loved her films since she made her husband James Cameron pay himself for that opening scene in Aliens where they cut through the derelict rescue capsule's door. Her films are beautifully-made, but with an underlying belief that American military personnel are inherently vicious and violent, ticking time-bombs; on the torture front, she obviously watched too much Jack Bauer in "24." But knowing who she is and knowing that opening torture scenes of her newest film Zero Dark Thirty were totally "pants on fire" false, Jose Rodriguez, Jr., "A CIA veteran on what 'Zero Dark Thirty' gets wrong about the bin Laden manhunt," The Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cia-veteran-on-what-zero-dark-thirty-gets-wrong-about-the-bin-laden-manhunt/2013/01/03/4a76f1b8-52cc-11e2-a613-ec8d394535c6_story.html, won't keep people from believing that the CIA routinely tortured people to get information on bin Laden. Just check the comments following Rodriguez's article.
The basis of the original Philadelphia zero votes claim was widely known: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/In-37-Chicago-Precincts-Romney-Received-No-Votes-179135891.html; it was cleared up later after provisional ballots were counted to one vote in several precincts. http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-10/news/35707641_1_duane-bumb-provisional-ballots-miriam-hill. It wasn't just Philly, either: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548626/romney-earned-zero-votes-in-some-urban-precincts/ Some analyses claimed it was statistically understandable. Id. Weigel discussed the "FRAUD!" argument in Slate by showing that there were precincts where Obama got zero votes. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/15/there_are_precincts_where_romney_got_no_voters_it_must_be_fraud.html
What we have here is a combination of conflicting interpretations, confirmation bias, and the usual trend for someone on the Internet to hide a grain of truth in a series of "Telephone"-like exaggerations and unrelated material. It's unclear to me how anonymity and a lack of access to this excellent mailing list would have prevented or ameliorated that.
Perhaps we could ask Colbert to do a PSA on it? Oh, wait . . . .
Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP
10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 500
Bethesda, MD 20817
301-231-6943 (direct dial)
bzall at aol.com<mailto:bzall at aol.com>
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Treasury Circular 230 Notice
Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
_____________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com>>
To: Adam Bonin <adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>>
Cc: law-election <law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>>
Sent: Mon, Jan 7, 2013 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [EL] Question about reporting on 2012 election voting
I have received a number of responses rebutting the allegations made in the
email I received. I assume, however, that the email (and the "Bill O'Reilly
facts", if they really ARE from him) are continuing to circulate on the
Internet. Without access to the election law listserve, it would appear
difficult to fact-check that sort of information, which to me illustrates one of
the problems with our increasing national exposure to essentially anonymous and
unauthenticated information.
Trevor
________________________________
From: Adam Bonin [mailto:adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com?>]
Sent: Sun 1/6/2013 11:49 PM
To: Trevor Potter
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] Question about reporting on 2012 election voting
Philadelphia has 1,687 voting divisions; there's nothing unusual about that
number at all. When the final count was in, the number was reduced to 50
no-vote divisions, and 99 with one Romney voter.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-10/news/35707641_1_duane-bumb-provisional
-ballots-miriam-hill
On the voter ID claim: the President won FL, MI, and NH, which have photo ID
requirements. He lost plenty of no-ID states, including NC, NE, WY, and MS.
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu?>] On Behalf Of Trevor
Potter
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 11:05 PM
Cc: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] Question about reporting on 2012 election voting
I received the email below from a (usually rational) friend, who wrote
asking if I thought it was true. Does anyone know if such allegations are
widespread, who is disseminating them, and whether they have recived press
coverage or been subject to analysis/rebuttal?
Thanks
Trevor Potter
The Numbers Are Now Talking
Very Interesting !!
Sometimes you just cannot argue with the numbers. The USA has bigger
problems on their hands other than who was elected President.
>From Bill O'Reilly's message board:
Most everyone suspected fraud, but these numbers prove it and our government
and media refuse to do anything about it.
As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter
fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH
and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate
election results.
Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.
* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of
the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical
and statistical impossibility).
* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes
where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations -
and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical
impossibility).
* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible
voters.
* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but
247,713 votes were cast.
* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a
158% voter turnout.
* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.
* In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.
NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in
every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.
Imagine that!
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> To
ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that,
unless specifically indicated otherwise, any tax advice contained in this
communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for
the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
tax-related matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is from a
law firm and may contain information that is privileged and confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure, copying, future
distribution, or use of this communication is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please advise us by return e-mail, or
if you have received this communication by fax advise us by telephone and
delete/destroy the document.
<-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
<-->
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130107/bd8cea03/attachment.html>
View list directory