Just having paper ballots isn't enough; how it’s counted matters.
~
* I testified in court that our signature count differed from the official report of vote totals in 68% of the precincts we audited. (We audited 1/4 of all precincts in the Franklin County, Ohio November 2006 election.)
~
In collecting forensic data, we found one column in the signature books which contained marks by pollworkers that each represented different information. When reviewing what my team of auditors had reported for these differing marks, I realized the entire column of "provisional" votes had to be removed from my analysis because of potentially inconsistent interpretation by my auditors.
~
For example, pollworkers marked the "provisional" vote column on Election Day to note if a voter voted provisionally, or if a voter voted Absentee (whether or not he or she showed up at the polls that day). This conflict in how pollworkers marked the column provided another level of inconsistency in the forensic records which rendered this column useless in performing our audit.
~
When I prepared the spreadsheet of our findings for court, I created two analysis columns - one which used the "provisional" vote column from the pollbooks and one which used official reports of how many voters had voted provisionally.
~
When using the second analysis - which compared the number of signatures of those who arrived on Election Day and voted in person PLUS the number of provisional voters as reported by the Franklin County Board of Elections, our audit revealed that official numbers conflicted with the audit in 24% of the precincts.
~
This second analysis is the most conservative estimate of how far off official results are as compared to the paper records, and is stunning in light of BOE Director Matt Damschroder's testimony that he had less than 1% error rate in this election.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
