Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Voting Irregularities in San Diego
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
fantomas
Since there are some San Diego residents on the board, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this report, \"San Diego Citizens Request Recount,\" which is pretty disturbing.

To summarize, San Diego recently held an election on June 25, 2005, in which voters used Diebold optical scanning machines, and then as part of a citizens' audit parallel vote, voted again on ballots that were sealed. When the sealed ballots were compared to the optical scan tallies, there was a statistically significant shift of 4% from the Democrat, Donna Frye, to her two Republican challengers. Oddly enough, this same Democrat had lost a previous election when a Republican registrar threw out 5,000+ ballots because voters didn't check a box along with writing in her name.

As a result, a Republican was elected, and he later had to resign because of financial scandals, as did the acting Democratic mayor. And now this:

QUOTE
The Citizens Audit Parallel Election (CAPE) asked voters exiting polls to vote again and sign a log book attesting to the accuracy of their second vote. Sealed parallel election ballots were counted at KGTV's studio with a TV camera crew filming the counting process.

Nearly 50 percent of all voters participated in the parallel election, which included five polling places representing 11 precincts. The sample included more conservative than liberal precincts, with participation as high among Republicans as among Democrats. The tandem election results showed what most feel to be startling results.

\"There is a shift of four percent of the vote, consistently,\" Joe Prizzi, (engineer and physicist,) reported at a press conference held by CAPE in front of City Hall. Frye received 50.2 percent of the votes cast in the parallel election - enough for an outright victory if those results reflect the outcome citywide. CAPE also found that the official count added approximately 2 percent to each of Frye's two Republican opponents, Jerry Sanders and Steve Francis.

In addition, CAPE examined the only other ballot measure, a proposition over a war memorial cross on public land. The proposition's vote total also appeared to have been padded by 4 percent in the official election tally, which was certified Friday August 19 by San Diego County's newly appointed Registrar of Voters, Republican Mikel Haas.
Citizens are now requesting a recount, because of the statistical anomaly. There's more in the article about California state politics and the question of whether a paper trail will be required.

Does anyone else know if a citizens' audit parallel voting system is in place anywhere else? Also, the article mentions Ohio, where there have been lots of questions about the voting procedures in the 2004 elections, and where Diebold holds sway.
millerbeach
GMGINSFO, where are you? Are you secretly working for Diebold now? (kidding, my miller beach bud). This is un-f-ing-believeable. And here I thought all the political crooks were in Washington D.C. or Lake County, Indiana. Is Diebold the only company that makes these machines? I think we should start shopping for a new company. Oh wait, that would mean we would have actual democracy! How dare we have valid elections in a democracy! What was I thinking!
MetsBoy
I am not employed by Diebold, and have no reason to defend them--especially if they are rigging machines. But (without knowing the precise numbers) this "shift" doesn't sound statistically significant to me. If the voters in the parallel election were allowed to self-select into the sample, then you can't draw any valid conclusion at all. In order to say that the result is outside of the range of sampling error, the participants in the parallel election would have to be chosen randomly. Also, it appears that numbers from a selection of precincts (parallel election) are being compared to the total results (general election). And why bring up the part about Dems and Repubs participating equally? Does that mirror the party mix among the general voting population? All of this could just be details left out of the article, but it doesn't seem like sound science the way it's written.

A better, and simpler, test of the equipment would be to have every person in a particular precinct vote by machine and by sealed ballot, and then compare the two results. Once sampling and non-sampling error become involved, things get too vague!
fantomas
Here's the original 10.news report from San Diego.

It would be interesting to hear from statisticians or mathematicians whether the voting comparison is valid and whether the percentage shift, or the ones that have been identified in Ohio, are significant and can be explained away easily.
MetsBoy
Thanks for the link fantomas. Unfortunately, the report is even more vague about the methods used, so it's impossible to tell if what they've done is valid. One thing that struck me in this article is that they report the results as "consistently" off by 2-4 percent. That suggests that they are comparing each precinct's sample with the results from only that precinct. If that's the case, then these results are VERY troubling. Any time you use a sample to infer something about a population, there will be some degree of sampling error--statisticians know and expect this. But the errors should be uncorrolated with one another, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If the errors are all in the same direction (i.e. the Republicans always have more votes) and all within the same range (another unusual result!) it seems much more likely that the machines are biased.
hookeminsd
San Diego is a pretty red county....depending on where you live, does not surprise me one bit. First the write in victory, then our Pension Board, then the Mayor,then 2 convicted council board memebers, then Pride, and now this....ahhh I love this city, but damn we look so bad across the nation.

Hey but we are currently hosting the GLBT Softball World Series and doing a great job from what I hear. Plus personally involved in hosting the GLBT Flag Football SuperBowl this year, and that is going to be spectacular.

So things are looking up!

-HOOK'EM HORNS!
gmginsfo
I don't live within the city of SD, so I don't have a real stake in its problems. Nor am I a mathematician or statistician, so I'll leave any speculation there to the experts. That's not to blow off SD's problems, which are many, but because they are not mine I have less interest in them, and therefore lack the knowledge on which to make an informed opinion on the Diebold issue.

That said, SD city is majority Demo these days, but the county went for President Bush in both elections and a majority of county officials are GOP. The write-in decision made by the GOP Registrar was upheld by the courts, so we can rule out politics there, as I'm sure most Demos would agree to when discussing the convictions of the two Demo councilmen; there probably would have been three had not the third Demo councilman indicted died before trial. Last time I checked, there weren't any GOPers involved in the Pederast Pride mess, but Dick Murphy did resign the mayoralty as a GOPer. He's a good man, but is much better suited to being a judge, as he once was, than a mayor.

And yes, the Gay World Series of Softball wraps up this weekend and has been a good time for all! Tonite: Happy Hour at Top of the Park from 5 onwards. Be there!
gmginsfo
FT, here's the latest word on the big noise you were making last week about alleged "voting irregularities" in SD. Summary: no wrong, no harm, no foul, no story. Looks like we won't need all those experts after all. What's the expression? "Move along, nothing to see here?" Link to non-story.
MIB
gmg, under Illinois law, in order for a write-in candidate to legally receive a vote, said candidate must have his/her name written legibly on the proper spot on the ballot AND have a check mark in a box next to this write in's name. If either is missing, the vote won't count, even if the name is easily discernible.

What's worse, one has to "file" as a write-in candidate. Doesn't that defeat the whole notion of "write-in" candidacies? :confused:
MetsBoy
gmg, don't be too quick to call this a "non-story". IF I were interested in rigging an election (and I'll grant, that's a big "if"), it would be relatively simple to do with a system like Diebold's. And the "test" they used doesn't prove non-fraud any more than the one by that Citizen's group proved fraud. They demonstrate that the machine count matches the ballots placed into the machine, which isn't surprising. They haven't verified whether that count also matches the number of votes cast in the precinct.

From all that I've read, I don't think there was any wrongdoing in San Diego's election. But it still amazes me that so many places in this country are adopting voting systems that are so easily manipulated! As long as these systems are used, the question of counting irregularities is going to hang over elections, and lots of time and money is going to be spent by anyone who doesn't like the outcome.
jqueer
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
FT, here's the latest word on the big noise you were making last week about alleged \"voting irregularities\" in SD.  Summary:  no wrong, no harm, no foul, no story.  Looks like we won't need all those experts after all.  What's the expression?  \"Move along, nothing to see here?\"  Link to non-story.
What that story was conspicuously missing was a method for the recount. If they stuck the ballots in the same machines and counted them the same way over again, no variance is no proof of a legitimate count. If they hand counted them, a person looking at each of the ballots individually (or some other, different counting method), then there an actual difference in the counting methods and gives some legitimacy to both the original tally and the recount. But as written, this story tells us no more than the people claiming voluntary exit polls accurately reflect the actual voting tallies.
gmginsfo
MetsBoy, like I said, in SD at least, no harm, nop foul. That's not to say, let alone excuse, any form of election fraud - including so-called "proportional voting," Ms. Guinier - but it's pretty clear that all the squawking and hasty conclusions about any wrongdoing in SD's elections were without foundation, however much they continue to be parrotted about.

MIB, yes, that's the same situation here in SD, and was the cornerstone of one candidate's unsuccessful challenge two elections ago. The courts upheld the duty of the voter to both check and write-in, as in IL. Not only is it not an onerous requirement, but it also appears to be a fairly common one.
MIB
QUOTE
gmginsfo:

MIB, yes, that's the same situation here in SD, and was the cornerstone of one candidate's unsuccessful challenge two elections ago.  The courts upheld the duty of the voter to both check and write-in, as in IL.  Not only is it not an onerous requirement, but it also appears to be a fairly common one.
It sure seems to me to be somewhat of a protection of the politicians, meaning it's a huge hurdle to overcome to get elected unless one is a slave to the party apparatus. Kinda sad, if you ask me.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.