Reply #8: A caveat [View All]

[euler]

Should we verify whether it's true or not? I only ask because the same basic story appeared in the New York Times on December 24, 2004. In other words, there are 2 reputable media sources that independently wrote the same basic story 3 weeks apart.

Here is just one comparison:

The NYT article says:

Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs,' said William Anthony Jr., a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County election board.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer says:

And in the end, the busiest precincts - when measured by the number of ballots cast per machine - were actually in the suburbs, not Cleveland, according to a Plain Dealer analysis of records from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. Countywide, voters cast an average of nearly 71 ballots on each of the county's 8,000 machines. In Cleveland alone, voters cast an average of 62 ballots per machine. In the suburbs, the average was 74.

*****************************************************************

The article also talks about the dynamics of machine allocation in 3 Ohio counties. It's clear that the decisions are all made at the county level. In addition, it shows that where machines were misallocated, at least in these 3 counties, the cause was poor planning, not fraud. Of course, the election supervisors in these 3 counties could be lying to the Plain Dealer and the NYT.

I could give the link, but you have to pay for $2.95 to read it so I won't bother. Anyone can find and pay for it using the information provided here. Here are the relevant portions:

December 24, 2004 New York Times. Front page below the fold. The story title is "Voting Problems in Ohio Spur Call for Overhaul " written by JAMES DAO, FORD FESSENDEN AND TOM ZELLER JR.; JAMES DAO REPORTED FROM COLUMBUS FOR THIS ARTICLE, FORD FESSENDEN FROM NEW YORK AND TOM ZELLER JR. FROM CLEVELAND

snip

In Columbus, Franklin County election officials reduced the number of electronic voting machines assigned to downtown precincts and added them in the suburbs. They used a formula based not on the number of registered voters, but on past turnout in each precinct and on the number of so-called active voters -- a smaller universe. By contrast, the state's most populous county, Cuyahoga, allocated machines based on the total number of voters, a move that the county's election director, Michael Vu, said helped stave off even bigger lines.

In the Columbus area, the result was that suburban precincts that supported Mr. Bush tended to have more machines per registered voter than center-city precincts that supported Mr. Kerry -- 4.6 machines per 1,000 voters in Mr. Bush's 50 strongest precincts, compared with 3.9 in Mr. Kerry's 50 best. Mr. McQuoid's precinct, a Kerry stronghold, lost one of the four machines it had in 2000, despite an increase in registration.

Matthew Damschroder, a Republican who is the director of elections in Franklin County, said the urban precincts lost machines because many of their voters had not voted recently and because those precincts historically had had low turnout. Indeed, election results show that a much higher suburban turnout on Nov. 2 meant that machines in Bush areas were more heavily used on average, although whether that was because their voters were less easily discouraged by long lines or simply more efficient in voting is unclear.

Most of the precincts that stayed open late because of long lines were in the suburbs,' said William Anthony Jr., a Democrat who is chairman of the Franklin County election board.

snip

All of this is basically the same thing the Cleveland Plain Dealer story says. I think we should verify that these stories are wrong before we do anything. As always, I could be wrong.