Reply #3: Wow, I just tried to post the following and got this message: [View All]

" Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."

Oopsie, they knew I was coming;) I would like these questions at least investigated.

So here's my contribution to the Howard Wilkinson blog:



PAUL HACKET’S RACE – QUESTIONS ASKED BUT NOT ANSWERED

Hackett’s race raised disturbing questions that nobody here asked (that I’m aware):
From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

“Here are some questions closer to home, questions the Cincinnati press chose not to ask:

Hackett’s percentage by precinct group size:

46.9% in precincts under 100 votes
43.5% in precincts of 100-200 votes
39.6% in precincts of 200-300 votes
34.6% in precincts of 300 + votes

These results raise interesting questions. Why does Hackett do much better in the smaller precincts? Are they more rural than the larger precincts? If so, does this not present a counterintuitive pattern, with the Democrat taking some of the conservative, less populated areas and the Republican winning all of the precincts in the most populated areas?”

Here is what it looks like when it’s graphed: Hackett can’t win a precinct in Clermont above 200 votes.


It’s interesting that there was no difference in turnout across precincts despite the size.

Here is a graphic representation of that even turnout:




There was some funny stuff on election day. With Hackett leading and 91 precincts yet to count, the vote count was stopped in Clermont. It seems “humidity” prevented the last set of ballots to be counted from 91 Clermont precincts. Amazingly, as if by magic, Hackett’s lead evaporated and he lost the race.

Here are some more questions questions never asked by the Cincinnati press about that:

From: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

“Questions not asked about the vote count stoppage.

The sudden stoppage of vote tabulation in Clermont was reminiscent of nearby Warren County’s Board of Elections citizen-media lockout during vote counting in 2004, which county officials claimed to be the result of a Homeland Security alert. There was no alert.

Was humidity the reason the optical scanning machine count stopped in Clermont, or was there some “intelligent design?” Humidity can impact the ability of optical scan counting machines to process paper ballots. It is not frequently reported and there are clear instructions providing easy remedies (e.g. air condition polling and tabulation facilities). The state of Louisiana made its 2003 RFP for voting machines contingent on tolerating a 98% humidity rate, for example. Air conditioning is reported to be widely available in Clermont County, as are dehumidifiers.

Why were 91 precincts impacted while 100 others were not in the same County?

Information about the locations of the humidity-impacted districts is unavailable. Was each of the 91 precincts without air conditioning? That would be a 48% rate of precincts exposed to conditions that the Board had to know could create problems. For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable. Certainly, they knew that humidity could be an issue. Just days before the special election there were extensive reports of a serious heat and humidity wave in the Cincinnati area. The regions largest newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer had been talking about the heat and humidity days before the election. Surely humidity on Election Day should have been taken into account.

Was there a one-to-one match between precincts with “humidified” ballots and precincts without air conditioning?

If so, why were nearly half of the precincts exposed to humidification? And if this is not so, if some of the 91 precincts with ballot problems due to humidity had air conditioning and some did not, how does the Board explain humidity problems in precincts with air conditioning?

Was Clermont the only part of the 2nd District that was affected by humidity that day and if so, why?

Clermont used optical scan paper ballots. Five other counties used punch card paper ballots, which have a similar or greater vulnerability to expansion or distortion due to humidity. There were no reports of problems in those five counties related to humidity. What is the critical variable that makes Clermont ballots vulnerable to distortion due to excessive moisture? Were precincts all air conditioned in the five counties that used punch card paper ballots? Was there something like an intense thermal inversion going on above the 91 precincts in Clermont County?

Why did the Board of Elections allow precincts to operate that lacked sufficient air conditioning to prevent humidity?

These questions need to be answered given the prior questions raised and documented about Clermont. The Board of Elections operates all year round. There is sufficient time to study manuals, attend vendor-sponsored retreats, and talk to nearby officials. Nearly half of the Clermont precincts had humidified ballots. A failure rate of nearly 50% is totally unacceptable performance for an election and offers the most unflattering commentary on those who are supposed to run it efficiently.”
-------------------------

Who knows? Maybe someday someone able to get the answers will ask the questions.