After going through the "Big Binder" and summary documents and poring over dozens of poll books, my conclusion is that the polling place ballots are an irreconcilable mess.
I've created this spreadsheet to summarize the Binder documents [see the extended entry for explanations of the columns]
My main observations and conclusions
* The starting point for the ballot/crediting discrepancy is the net 1,660 polling place and provisional ballots in excess of credited voters. (This does not include the discrepancy in the absentee votes). I can explain a number of the discrepancies, but I've yet to find any feasible explanation for "ballotless voters". So I'll concentrate on the polling places where there are more ballots than voters. Because of all of the difficulties, I can only give a rough range of about 1,300 to 2,100 illegally-cast or otherwise unexplainable polling ballots. This comes from an estimated 628 absentee voters who should have cast a provisional ballot but instead received and cast a regular ballot, and upwards of 700 provisional ballots that were issued and ended up in the Accuvote before they were verified. There are also untold other reconciliation irregularities for which there is no apparent explanation.
MORE --
Refer to the Binder documents for the rest of the discussion -- Summary Reconciliation and Notes, and also the Worksheet of the 348 Provisionals .
Some of the problem ballots were undoubtedly cast by eligible registered voters who failed to follow the rules or were given incorrect instructions by the pollworkers. It would take a careful recanvass of all 330,000+ polling place ballots to determine how many of these ballots were legitimate, how many would have been legitimate if the voter followed the rules, and how many were downright fraudulent.
* Some of the discrepancy really is attributed to post-election crediting error. For one polling place in particular, Rainier Free Methodist Church, the roughly 36 voters in the first 15 pages of the poll book were never credited for voting. (As an example, see the first page of the pollbook and go to the Sound Politics voter database to verify the voters who signed in). This large of a crediting discrepancy does not seem to be typical.
* The single biggest problem with the reconciliation is that the reports released by the county don't show the number of signatures in the polling portion of the poll books. If we had these numbers, we could do a more reasonable job of tallying true crediting discrepancies (signatures - credits) and bogus ballots (AccuVote count - signatures). Canvassers counted signatures and recorded the numbers in the actual pollbooks. If King County compiled these numbers into a single document it would be to their advantage to release it. But it's not feasible for me to go through 2,600 pollbooks to gather these numbers.
* It is also difficult to get an exact count of the "signatures". I've found a number of cases where pollworkers didn't follow the required procedures for issuing ballots. In some cases, signatures are missing; ballot serial numbers are missing; people who should have received provisional ballots signed the page for the issuance of regular ballots; in some of the latter cases, they appear to have been issued regular ballots, in other cases they appear to have received provisional ballots after all; voters with spoiled ballots were sometimes given provisional ballots when they simply should have been given a replacement ballot and the spoiled ballot set aside; It's not always possible to tell how many ballots of each type were issued and returned. But a best-effort signature count by precinct would be better than no count at all.
* The number of absentee voters who should have cast provisionals but instead cast regular ballots appears to be about 628. See the discussion of spreadsheet Columns AE and AI. We won't know whether these people also cast their absentee ballots until we get the Absentee Ballot Audit Trail.
* What does "No label" mean? A correctly cast provisional ballot would show up as an envelope in the ballot machine side pocket with an attached removable sticky label. When the provisionals are first canvassed, the labels are removed from the envelopes and placed on sheets by polling place. An example label sheet is posted here. The Binder documents give a count of "no label" provisionals by precinct. This indicates the difference between the number of provisional ballots issued and the number of labels that showed up on the label sheets. A few different scenarios could explain a "no label" -- a provisional ballot that the voters takes out of the polling place without casting it, a voter who removes the label from the envelope in the few steps between getting the envelope from the poll worker and placing the envelope in the side pocket of the ballot box; or most commonly, a provisional ballot that goes into the AccuVote without the envelope. In polling places where the number of AccuVote ballots exceeds the number of signatures and the "no label" number is close to the difference, unverified provisionals would seem to be the best explanation.
The following explains the columns in the spreadsheet --
The two leftmost columns after the polling place show the number of voters at each polling place crediting with voting at the polls and also the number of polling ballots at the polling place from the machine recount (very close to the final number). The first yellow columns are taken from the Binder Summary document; the blue columns are from the Binder Notes.
*Column L "PB348 PBAV" -- As I noted the other day, the so-called "348 unverified provisional ballots" was never 348. Adjusting just for the likely data entry errors (rows where the number of acknowledged ballots is less than the number of explained ballots, I get 376)
* Column O "CredDiffRaw" -- the sum of ballots counted + add-on ballots - credits for the polling place. [see this post for significance of "add-on"]
* Column Z "Ack PB" -- these are the unverified provisionals that King County is implicitly acknowledging -- the maximum of Column L and the "Adjusted" number they give in the Reconciliation Summary. [The Adjusted number is supposed to have included all of the unverified provisionals, but in practice it didn't). I get 718 implicitly acknowledged unverified provisionals.
* Column AE "Prov Diff" -- this is the discrepancy by polling place between provisional ballots counted and provisional voters credited. A negative discrepancy is likely to have been caused by an absentee voter who tries to vote at a polling place and is supposed to receive a provisional ballot, but is instead given a regular ballot and signs the regular place in the poll book. Their ballot is counted as a polling ballot, but in the cases I've looked at, the voter is credited as provisional.
* Column AF "AdjCredDiff" -- the ballot/credit discrepancy adjusted for the likely number of absentee voters who voted regular ballots (Column AE).
* Column AG "Capped NoLabel" -- the number of "no label" ballots identified per polling place. Many but not all of these are likely to be unverified provisionals. The number of "no labels" [column I] is capped by the Adjusted Credit Diff [Column AF]
* Column AH "Minimum Likely Unverified PB" -- If King County identified a specific number of Unverified provisionals for a polling place [Column Z], take that number, otherwise take the Capped NoLabel number [Column AG]
* Column AI "Absentee At Polls" -- Estimates the number of absentee voters who voted a regular polling ballot. The maximum of absolute value of Prov Diff [column AE] and Credit Discrepancy.
I don't guarantee perfection. Feel free to report errors and I'll do my best to correct any actual errors.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 22, 2005 05:24 PM | Email ThisThe LEFTISTS will go absolutely beserk when Judge Bridges sets aside this election. It will be more fun to watch than Buckwheat Sims try to pronouce optimistic (ostamistic).
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 22, 2005 07:33 PMI guess I was right and you were wrong, most of the so called 348 pbav were included in the 660 adjusted #, since you are now claiming some 700 provisionals were fed thru the accuvote, not the 900+ you claimed previously.
Posted by: chew2 on March 22, 2005 07:43 PMMost Leftists are already non compos mentis. Maybe this will bring them back to reality better than electroshock therapy (affectionately know as "Medicine from Edison"), and they will forget they were ever leftists.
I added a column that simply determines the ratio of adjustments (Column D) to Credited Votes (Column B). First it was surprising how dispersed the problems are.
A few polling places did stand out:
1. The Josephinium, 1902 2 Av - 492 Voters and 36 adjustments for 7.3%
2. Univ Temple United Meth Church, 252 Voters and 11 adjustments for 4.5%
There are seven additional polling places in the 3.0 to 3.9% range. Another 3 in the 2.0 to 2.9% range. Another 19 in the 1.0 to 1.9% range. Another 104 in the greater than 0 but less than 1%. A majority have no adjustments.
Would it make sense to do some analysis and the top 10 problem polling locations? Is it possible to look at the actual ballots for these districts?
Posted by: Mike on March 22, 2005 08:11 PMWhile I have 2 more "PBAVs" to account for in the reconciliation summary released by King County on March 11, it appears that what Dean Logan described as "some overlap" between the 660 and 348 was 312 of them. In other words, 312 of the 348 PBAVs were used as the basis for "adjusting" the figures to offset situations in which there were more ballots in the box than there were regular ballots issued.
The total is 698 (or possibly 700, if I find those other 2 PBAVs) provisional ballots that King County now admits were unlawfully included in the vote tabulation process -- since they were inserted into the ballot boxes via the AccuVote machines rather than into signed, labeled envelopes for later verification much like absentee ballots are verified.
Since you're into saying who was right and who was wrong, answer this: Was Dean Logan right to tell everyone in early January that only 348 were put into the ballot boxes when he had this information available to him since mid-November?
Hanna,
The ballots are coded so that the AccuVote machine can see which precinct they're from. It should reject a ballot from the wrong polling place, I think. (If it can't, I don't know how it would deal with a ballot from the wrong precinct, since it provides a vote count precinct by precinct. For the precincts that are using that polling place, it would produce a vote count for them -- thus, it ought to simply reject a ballot from a precinct that it isn't programmed to tabulate.)
Posted by: Micajah on March 22, 2005 08:27 PMChew2, you have no credibility here anymore. I look at the list and I see a 376 also. But, still waiting for you, Nellie and Unkl Witz and the school girls to condemn the brick throwing incident. I will continue to write this at the end of every post until then.
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on March 22, 2005 08:42 PMOne more time; the strategy of the left - delay, deny and dissemble. Time will tell !
Posted by: KS on March 22, 2005 09:05 PMSo is 660 more or less than 129?
So who is right and who is wrong?
Posted by: Larry on March 22, 2005 09:28 PMI call it the:
"Look the number is slighly lower (approx. 700) then the number you thought (possibly 900+) that was much higher then the number we previously reported (348)."
You have also seen this spin recently with the illegal felon votes.
WOW, Good work guys! One problem... Hundreds of illegal ballots were still counted.
Dean Logan needs to be held accountable for printing a false election report when they had the REAL information all along. This spin scam cost the taxpayers 10's of thousands of dollars. The information is incaccurate but oddly enough still posted on the county website, and you can still pick up the bogus report at your library.
Keep writing those emails to your council members about this. I know their "delete" button will eventually wear out, and they will be forced to read letters asking them to be responsible.
This spin scam cost the taxpayers 10's of thousands of dollars.
Rossi was defrauded; we were robbed.
Posted by: Amused by you on March 23, 2005 12:40 PMYou're a gem, thanks. I may be missing something, but it seems there are two ways for party idiologues to affect the outcome by taking advantage of intentionally sloppy procedures.
1) One is 'traditional' ballot box stuffing, sneaking in extra ballots at some point in the process, which may result in voterless ballots.
2) You mentioned you couldn't, however, account for ballotless voters. The second way is ballot box 'unstuffing', i.e. folks with some sort of access to as yet uncounted ballots, stripping out the ones they don't like and secretly disposing of them, resulting in 'ballotless voters' in the reconciliation. N'est pas?
Posted by: Don Vandervelde on March 23, 2005 07:17 PM