Ohio Recount is over and gues what, Bush still wins by over 118,000 votes!!

[DanimalBr]

Kerry gained 734 votes in the recount, while Bush picked up 449.  The majority of these pickups were from previously disqualified ballots where the chads had fallen out since then due to machine or ballot handling.   

Kerry picks up a whopping 285 votes.  So instead of Bush winning Ohio by 118,775 votes, he wins Ohio by 118,490.  That 285 vote gain for Kerry is going to cost the Ohio taxpayers 1.5 million dollars.  I hope the Greens and Liberterians are proud of themselves. 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041228/D878SO3G0.html

[Alcon]

I like my state's law on this. Stupid third parties.

[Andrew]

That 285 vote gain for Kerry is going to cost the Ohio taxpayers 1.5 million dollars.  I hope the Greens and Liberterians are proud of themselves. 

There is no evidence that the recount cost anything like that.  That estimate was based on the idea that there would be hand recounts.  Almost all of the counties ignored the legally required recount procedures; as a result, almost all of the votes were recounted by machine.  At least one county board indicated that the $10 per precinct would be more than enough to cover the cost--and any extra money goes into the counties' general funds.

The $1.5 million is what you call a "talking point."

Oh, and for what it's worth, no Greens or Libertarians served in the Ohio legislature that wrote the law requiring only $10 per precinct for a recount--and no Greens or Libertarians have served in the legislatures that have chosen not to revise that law in the years since it was enacted.

[agcatter]

118,000 votes and we're having a recount?  What a lot of horsesh**t.

[Gabu]

Oh good, now let's have 416 more recounts; that way Kerry can pick up enough votes to win.

[J-Mann]

Oh good, now let's have 416 more recounts; that way Kerry can pick up enough votes to win.

Shhhh, don't give the Dems any ideas.  I wouldn't put anything past them!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If "making sure all votes are counted" was the goal, then why was Ohio singled out?

What a bunch of transparent whiners. 

[Andrew]

Two responses:

1.  Ohio was targeted because of the many reports of irregularities there.

2.  Ohio was not singled out.  Efforts have been made in New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, Georgia, Florida, and elsewhere.  They are still in court in New Mexico, trying to get the recount underway.

[King]

Shame on the Libertarians...that goes against all they stand for!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Ohio was targeted because of the many reports of irregularities there.

285 votes shaved off a 118,000 vote margin is NOT my definition of "many irregularities"!!!!!

1183 new votes found out of 5.600,000 million cast.  That's an error rate of 00.021%, or an accuracy rate of 99.979%!!!

Congratulations to Ohio for pulling off an extremely CLEAN election!  Maybe now the losers will leave you good people alone.

[stry_cat]

Why did the totals change?  If they counted it right both times then the totals should be the same.  Without another count we cannot be sure which total is correct.   There can be no excuse for miscounting votes.

[??????????]

Fox News is reporting the Democrats are asking for a recount of Alabama.

[Alcon]

Fox News is reporting the Democrats are asking for a recount of Alabama.

I hope you're joking.

[??????????]

Fox News is reporting the Democrats are asking for a recount of Alabama.

I hope you're joking.

I wish I were!

[agcatter]

You gotta be joking here.

[Alcon]

Fox News is reporting the Democrats are asking for a recount of Alabama.

I hope you're joking.

I wish I were!

I can't believe it until I see it. Where can I find it online?

EDIT: Unless, of course, this is another recount for Amendment 2.

[A18]

Why did the totals change?  If they counted it right both times then the totals should be the same.  Without another count we cannot be sure which total is correct.   There can be no excuse for miscounting votes.

Are you serious? In every election some votes are not properly counted. It's just almost never enough to be significant.

[J. J.]

Okay, before we condem the Democrats to an even lower circle of Hell, what are they recounting?  Is there a question in a close local race?  Are they looking at possible machine error in a few voting districts?

[CARLHAYDEN]

JJ,

First, there have historically been a few shenanigans by Republicans in the vote counting process in the past (Pennsylvania and Eastern Tennessee were hotbeds of this a couple of generations ago).

Second, while it is true the vote shennanigans over recent years have primarily been by some Democrats, those persons are an exception, and are roundly condemned by responsible Democrats.

Third, I really don't know if there is a sufficently low level of hell for people like Dean Logan.

Fourth, I have seen nothing over the past few weeks about a recount of statewide magnitude in Alabama.  The vote on the proposition was recounted a few weeks ago.

[Andrew]

In Alabama's recount of the Amendment 2 (to remove segregationist language from the Constitution) vote, the totals changed from 691,300 NO - 689,450 YES to 690,376 NO - 688,530 YES.  The margin decreased by only four, but the total votes decreased by 1844.

Why do we tolerate a system in which we get such large-scale changes each time the votes are counted?  We wouldn't tolerate our banks doing such a half-assed job.

[A18]

Because some people insist on counting a paper record instead of completely computerizing the process, which would be 100% accurate.

[Alcon]

Because some people insist on counting a paper record instead of completely computerizing the process, which would be 100% accurate.

Anyone who knows about computers know that they are about as accurate as the humans who build them, the humans who use them, and the parts they are made of. The disaster scenario is the loss of the data on the computer, in which the paper record could be used. However, the paper record should always be matched to the computer record. Otherwise there is way too much possibility of fraud.

[J. J.]

JJ,

First, there have historically been a few shenanigans by Republicans in the vote counting process in the past (Pennsylvania and Eastern Tennessee were hotbeds of this a couple of generations ago).

Second, while it is true the vote shennanigans over recent years have primarily been by some Democrats, those persons are an exception, and are roundly condemned by responsible Democrats.

Third, I really don't know if there is a sufficently low level of hell for people like Dean Logan.

Fourth, I have seen nothing over the past few weeks about a recount of statewide magnitude in Alabama.  The vote on the proposition was recounted a few weeks ago.

Carl,

All interesting points, but not an answer to my question. 

Do they want to recount every vote in the state?  What races?  Do they want to recount selected precincts to determine if the machines were working?  Are they recounting a selected district?

I saw a situation where an incumbent State Rep, winning 3 to 1 accross his district, lost one  precinct by 98 to 3.  He, using the appropriate recount procedure, ask for a recount there.  It was found that a dial on the machine was stuck and he had 103 votes.

Now, if he only had 3 votes in that town, he'd have to campaign much more heavily there in the next election.  That would justify the recount, IMO.  As it turned out, there was a clear error.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are a number of established means of looking at returns to see if there is reasonable grounds for a recount.

First, to answer your rephrased question, I don't know who "they" are, so I am unable to answer that specific question.  However, most states have in their statute governing the election process when a recount may and when it should be held.  Moreover, it is quite rare for a recount to change the results in an elections, so it is rarely requested.

Second, there are several statistical methodologies which would indicate something which appears incongrous (such as the example you cite).

Interestingly, if you check the internet you will see that before the general election, Dean Logan was on record as stating that machine recounts were more accurate than hand counts.

[J. J.]

There are a number of established means of looking at returns to see if there is reasonable grounds for a recount.

First, to answer your rephrased question, I don't know who "they" are, so I am unable to answer that specific question.  However, most states have in their statute governing the election process when a recount may and when it should be held.  Moreover, it is quite rare for a recount to change the results in an elections, so it is rarely requested.

Second, there are several statistical methodologies which would indicate something which appears incongrous (such as the example you cite).

Interestingly, if you check the internet you will see that before the general election, Dean Logan was on record as stating that machine recounts were more accurate than hand counts.

Mr. Logan is not an official of the state of Alabama, so his comments are not relevent.

Neither of us know the "why" of the recount nor what is being reconted.

The "statistical method" in indicative of where there could be a problem, but the only to determine if there is a problem is to have a recount.