Recount called off in GSD election

The Hart Intercivic voting system has been deemed as flawed by the California Secretary of State’s ” Top to Bottom ” review. The proprietary software code, coupled with the VVPAT ” receipt under glass ” system, creates countless security risks.  Warren Slocum should follow the direction of computer scientists and governmnet studies by moving toward paper ballot / open source software systems.

Brent, do you have a link for that, specifically with respect to the Hart system?

This has been an exciting election!  Why was the recount called off?  Did Mr. Larimer only offer to pay for one day?

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vsr.htm -  See section on Hart

A 10 vote difference is a pretty big gap.

Lisa was prepared at the beginning of the day to skip counting the electronic ballots, which were unlikely to change when re-counted.

After counting about 80 ballots, one vote for Ric Lohman had been thrown out because the voter had used the red ink, contrary to instructions. I left at this point.

As the day progressed, I’m told that Lisa had lost a vote because one voter had initialed a change they made on their ballot, which is also forbidden (it’s not anonymous).

Based on the ballots I saw, my impression was that for the most part, they were very cleanly and clearly marked and that it would be very difficult change the outcome by recounting.

When you’re behind by so few votes, a recount probably seems worth a try. But once the counting begins, it must seem increasingly futile.

Barry,

Thanks for the recount education.  Very interesting.

I belive it is a good idea to recount with the assistance of election reform activists that are familiar with the process. One item to note is that there is no such thing as an electronic ballot. The Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail is merely a cash register style printout, and does not meet the legal requirements to be a ballot. The actual count is accumulated through electronic ” brains” and then transmitted to the corporate owned central tabulation system. As far as the DRE’s-  those counts have been shown by Rice University and others to be easily manipulated in synch with bogus VVPAT countss.. Not to say anyone in SMC woould tamper with an election- but there is a large US and international issue history.  The audit system as currently constructed as a ” spot check ” rather than an audit, and is not an appropriate security measure.

That’s strange… You wrote:  “A 10 vote difference is a pretty big gap.”
But Naomi Patridge gets 400 more votes than Deborah Ruddock’s 1,053, and it’s close? Too funny!
And Sabrina Brennan, County Elections Manager David Tom said the recount would take roughly a day. Not sure why you saw fit to insinuate something about Jim Larimer.
http://www.hmbreview.com/articles/2009/11/24/news/breaking_news/doc4b0c79607b111597676128.txt
Thanks, Brett Turner, for posting some enlightening (and worrisome?) articles.

Joel, it should have been clear from the context that I meant a 10 vote margin is a pretty big gap to overcome in a recount with so few ballots, many of them cast electronically.

By way of comparison, the 2004 City Council election was much closer on a percentage basis and MIke was unable to bridge the gap.

I described the Old Guard’s 2009 margin as “decisive, but hardly a mandate”.  I don’t think I described it as close, and I certainly would not have described Naomi’s margin of victory as “close”. Can I have a citation, please?

Joel,

It was my understanding that Mr. Larimer arrived early on November 25th at the “Temple of Democracy” and *may* have paid via money order or check for the first day of the recount.

To read the previous comments please go to: https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/photos_coastsider_visits_san_mateo_countys_temple_of_democracy/091125/https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/photos_coastsider_visits_san_mateo_countys_temple_of_democracy/091125/