On 4/8/11, Candice Hoke <shoke@law.csuohio.edu> wrote:
A suspicion of fraud is not the only reason for conducting an inquiry
and recount in Wisconsin or in any other election. Indeed, that should
be the last claim. But questioning election result accuracy need not
and normally does not relate to fraud.
While fraud definitely is certainly not the only reason to do an
inquiry, and will often (but not under all fact patterns) be "the last
claim", the remedy proposed here -- a recount -- will only detect a
narrow slice of all possible errors and frauds.
Specifically, recounts detect only ballot interpretation errors and
mathematical counting errors. Recounts do not, ever, detect even an
accidentally "stuffed" ballot box. In such cases of extra votes, both
the count and the recount will match up no matter how many times
recounts are repeated, and will then give the public a false sense of
confidence in the result. There are numerous other
non-recount-detectable errors and frauds that would further illustrate
this point. A much more robust inquiry that goes well beyond a mere
recount is needed, and if the evidence is electronic, it's more likely
than not the evidence of an actual error or actual fraud won't be
found (if someone erases it the right way)
Even in presidential elections, we have the criminal convictions of
two Ohio election workers for their actions during the 2004
presidential recount to show that the all-too-human desire to cover
one's own behind is more powerful than partisanship. In a Democratic
County, presumably "Democratic" election officials rigged the partial
recount so that it would not show any discrepancy with the official
count showing a Bush win that they had already signed off on.
Who, after all, wants to be "the next Florida?" The pressure on
election officials to want to say "all is well" even if where is not
is intense, and all too human. This Democratic county (Cuyahoga)
acted, in direct effect, to insure that the numbers on Bush's Ohio win
remained unchanged. One need not assume the result would have changed
in a true and full recount to know that picking precincts non-randomly
that are known to check out and match up is wrong on every level.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
PS After appeal, I recall the two Ohio election officials pled no
contest, but that's the same as a guilty plea for criminal purposes,
it's just not usable in potential civil litigation.
On 4/7/11 8:52 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
I think I may need to take back the last line of my most recent post.
Apparently Michael Moore and Daily Kos are raising the possibility of
election official fraud as well. Sigh.
Rick