Calls for Janice Winfrey to resign as city clerk grow - 60% of Detroit precints wrong

[belleislerunner]

Yesterday another local editorial has published a piece calling on Janice Winfrey, Detroit city clerk to resign immediately.

http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2016/1...detroit-clerk/

It's amazing that 392 of the 662 precints in Detroit [[60%) there was not a direct match on election night between the tallies reported and the number of votes in the box. Thus, had Hillary requested the recount - none of those votes would have been eligible for recount.

How do we fix such incompetence and restore, or at least the perception, the integrity of voting in Detroit? Should the AG do an investigation? The Secretary of State? Federal Election Commission? City Council?

[BankruptcyGuy]

Again, I sometimes don't have a good idea why Detroiters don't demand better.

You might also ask yourself why Detroit has 491 [[!?!?) precincts, with an average number of voters that is 1/2 to 1/3 of the average of other municipalities. It's not lack of voter density--even in rural towns, they don't have that.

It is, in my mind, another area where Detroit's government thinks its role is to create and provide jobs. If election day has about 4 workers per precinct, that's probably 1,000 people that are being paid when that money could be used elsewhere.

Detroiters need to step up and correct these things.

[renf]

The experience in Oregon suggest that we might switch to voting using the internet, smart phones and mail. Why do we continue to use the costly paper ballot system which is
prone to error? How much would local municipalities save by switching to a phone, internet, mail system with appropriate safeguards?

[Lowell]

The experience in Oregon suggest that we might switch to voting using the internet, smart phones and mail. Why do we continue to use the costly paper ballot system which is
prone to error? How much would local municipalities save by switching to a phone, internet, mail system with appropriate safeguards?

Well, I dunno. As one who follows the cybercrime and the hacking world fairly closely I am a big believer in the hard copy ballot. Even the optical scanners used to tally the votes, which fortunately are not web-networked [to my knowledge] are suspect and need to be periodically randomly sampled with physical counts. Likewise transmission of tallies if done digitally, even if encrypted, should require followup hard copy results by post or at least fax via not internet-connected devices and thereby double verified at the destination.

At this point in time it may be safe to say that every device everywhere that is web connected is hacked. Every major country in the world is cyber-arming and penetrating all they can. The explosion of millions of 'Internet of Things' aka IoT devices [thermostats, locks, lights, cameras one controls via smartphone] has complicated the mess. They are poorly constructed with easy to hack software.

Sure it take longer, but this is our most precious time when we the people hold the power for one day. So what's the hurry?

[ndavies]

Paper Ballots are far more immune to tampering than an electronic system.

A few lines of computer code can corrupt electronic ballots. In a couple of seconds every vote in the system can be changed. A hacked electronic voting device might even show the users inputs correctly, but output completely different count when the results are requested. It would be a monumental task to do that with paper ballots.

Paper ballots are still the recommended way to run an election.

[belleislerunner]

And assuming paper ballots are how we vote, shouldn't one's job as the precinct manager be to ensure that the total quantity of the ballots equals the totals per the machine, with any variances [[e.g. jammed ballot in machine) identified before going home for the night. I mean - what job is more simple that counting a stack of paper? And we can't even do that...

[Honky Tonk]

Problems with votes in Detroit, who'd a thunk it? Once again the City's ineptitude shines like a beacon in the darkness.

[preserve]

The election day workers are a sad mess where I vote. I am not sure any of them can even read - I know they go through a training session, but, it doesn't appear to be any retention and I can only hope that whoever counts the absentee ballots does a better job.

[Lowell]

And assuming paper ballots are how we vote, shouldn't one's job as the precinct manager be to ensure that the total quantity of the ballots equals the totals per the machine, with any variances [[e.g. jammed ballot in machine) identified before going home for the night. I mean - what job is more simple that counting a stack of paper? And we can't even do that...

Split tickets can take a lot of time in a hand count. An optical scanner makes sense but there needs to be a procedure for regular random sampling [like hand counting say 50 random ballots then scanning them] to insure the optical scanner is tallying correctly. And in no way should it be networked.

[BankruptcyGuy]

Split tickets can take a lot of time in a hand count. An optical scanner makes sense but there needs to be a procedure for regular random sampling [like hand counting say 50 random ballots then scanning them] to insure the optical scanner is tallying correctly. And in no way should it be networked.

I believe they run a battery of tests before the election to make sure the machines are functioning. And I know they are not networked.

[MSUguy]

Again, I sometimes don't have a good idea why Detroiters don't demand better.

You might also ask yourself why Detroit has 491 [[!?!?) precincts, with an average number of voters that is 1/2 to 1/3 of the average of other municipalities. It's not lack of voter density--even in rural towns, they don't have that.

It is, in my mind, another area where Detroit's government thinks its role is to create and provide jobs. If election day has about 4 workers per precinct, that's probably 1,000 people that are being paid when that money could be used elsewhere.

Detroiters need to step up and correct these things.

Are you from Detroit? Because it sure it sure doesn't sound like something written by someone who actually votes in Detroit. Election day was chaos, long lines, confused seemingly understaffed poll workers. If Detroit was just making up jobs for people to do it sure as hell didn't seem like it.

[Jimaz]

What I'd like to see is a way any voter could verify, after the election and in a way that could not be falsified, that their vote was actually counted as they intended.

I know cryptologists were working on this problem several decades ago but I haven't kept up with that research.

Here's something about it: End-to-end auditable voting systems.

It would remove any credible doubt about the integrity of the system. I think we could all use that about now.

[snf]

Lolol @ all the people here refusing to call it exactly what it is and that is demonrat voter fraud . Something the demonrat party always does. LOLOL

[Wesley Mouch]

The experience in Oregon suggest that we might switch to voting using the internet, smart phones and mail. Why do we continue to use the costly paper ballot system which is
prone to error? How much would local municipalities save by switching to a phone, internet, mail system with appropriate safeguards?

What? Phone, Internet, Mail more secure than a piece of paper in a box? You must be kidding.

In fact, I think the only truly secure ballot is the hand-marked paper ballot in a box. You count the contents with witnesses. Its nearly foolproof. Any system involving electronics is a huge mistake.

[Dan Wesson]

This exposure is so emblematic of many things on so many levels and tangents of why Detroit is the way it is.

More "Made in Detroit" ammo for the nattering nabobs of negativity across America.

[Gannon]

We've had Automated Teller Machines since the 60s. Same with Optical Scanner Voting.


How hard would it be to combine the two? Seriously.

Voter inputs their choices with electronic buttons on a screen.

Verify their choices, press Enter.

Vote gets electronically tallied instantly, while the receipt is printed.

Voter verifies printed ticket matches their choices.

Hands it, through an optical scanner, to a person who manually archives these hard copies for possible future recount.


So we get all the benefits of each technology, each balancing the other's weaknesses.

Instant tallies, with verifiable recounts available. But with an instant checksum as well...with the voter verifying between the data input and optical scanned check.

[Honky Tonk]

We've had Automated Teller Machines since the 60s. Same with Optical Scanner Voting.


How hard would it be to combine the two? Seriously.

Voter inputs their choices with electronic buttons on a screen.

Verify their choices, press Enter.

Vote gets electronically tallied instantly, while the receipt is printed.

Voter verifies printed ticket matches their choices.

Hands it, through an optical scanner, to a person who manually archives these hard copies for possible future recount.


So we get all the benefits of each technology, each balancing the other's weaknesses.

Instant tallies, with verifiable recounts available. But with an instant checksum as well...with the voter verifying between the data input and optical scanned check.

Not a bad idea, I like it. I would just add after they're done voting, a prompt pops up and asks them if they would like cash back.

[belleislerunner]

[QUOTE=Honky Tonk;517676]Not a bad idea, I like it. I would just add after they're done voting, a prompt asks them if they would like cash back.

Or make it like open enrollment - voting for X will cause your premiums [[i.e. taxes) go up by Y amount. Please prepay next years tax increase with your vote =)

[drjeff]

She has been screwing up elections for years and yet still gets reelected every time. Why should she bother to quit? There are no repercussions for incompetence.

[Mackinaw]

This is all probably quite right, but let's not forget that Detroit's voting equipment surely is not appropriately funded by state and federal sources as it ought.

I don't understand the election law provision under which a mismatch in ballots caused the recount to stop. Wasn't that the whole fucking point of the recount-- to simply count each PAPER ballot to account for equipment malfunctions or possible equipment tampering/hacking?

I am appalled at the level of discourse surrounding the Michigan recount and the ability of the Republicans to convince people that a recount costing $1 per actual voter was not worth it to audit our system. Shame on them and double shame on the democrat leadership in Michigan, whereever they f'ing are, for not stepping up to call the republicans on their bullshit. We'll never know whether our machines were tampered, whether the Russians hacked our voting apparatus just as they hacked other state's registration systems and disseminated false news....all because of $1 a voter. I decry Snyder for not being a leader, and the SOS for being a clown in a failing to embrace the idea of an audit. And again, where were the democrat voices? Are they just accepting Trump as president so that he can implode, ruin the economy, and make them look good in 2-4 years? Not okay.

And will these problems in Detroit that were uncovered immediately upon the start of the recount be rectified before the next election...of course not.

Michigan has an opportunity to distinguish itself from the rest of the nation as an intelligent, open-minded place. Instead we are looking just as savage as everyone else, if not worse.

[Honky Tonk]

This is all probably quite right, but let's not forget that Detroit's voting equipment surely is not appropriately funded by state and federal sources as it ought.

I don't understand the election law provision under which a mismatch in ballots caused the recount to stop. Wasn't that the whole fucking point of the recount-- to simply count each PAPER ballot to account for equipment malfunctions or possible equipment tampering/hacking?

I am appalled at the level of discourse surrounding the Michigan recount and the ability of the Republicans to convince people that a recount costing $1 per actual voter was not worth it to audit our system. Shame on them and double shame on the democrat leadership in Michigan, whereever they f'ing are, for not stepping up to call the republicans on their bullshit. We'll never know whether our machines were tampered, whether the Russians hacked our voting apparatus just as they hacked other state's registration systems and disseminated false news....all because of $1 a voter. I decry Snyder for not being a leader, and the SOS for being a clown in a failing to embrace the idea of an audit. And again, where were the democrat voices? Are they just accepting Trump as president so that he can implode, ruin the economy, and make them look good in 2-4 years? Not okay.

And will these problems in Detroit that were uncovered immediately upon the start of the recount be rectified before the next election...of course not.

Michigan has an opportunity to distinguish itself from the rest of the nation as an intelligent, open-minded place. Instead we are looking just as savage as everyone else, if not worse.

But Janice Winfrey, who spends boatloads of money on billboards and name recognition, and has been screwing up vote accountability for every election so far, gets a free pass. I can tell your head's screwed on correctly.

[EastsideAl]

This is all probably quite right, but let's not forget that Detroit's voting equipment surely is not appropriately funded by state and federal sources as it ought.

I don't understand the election law provision under which a mismatch in ballots caused the recount to stop. Wasn't that the whole fucking point of the recount-- to simply count each PAPER ballot to account for equipment malfunctions or possible equipment tampering/hacking?

I am appalled at the level of discourse surrounding the Michigan recount and the ability of the Republicans to convince people that a recount costing $1 per actual voter was not worth it to audit our system. Shame on them and double shame on the democrat leadership in Michigan, whereever they f'ing are, for not stepping up to call the republicans on their bullshit. We'll never know whether our machines were tampered, whether the Russians hacked our voting apparatus just as they hacked other state's registration systems and disseminated false news....all because of $1 a voter. I decry Snyder for not being a leader, and the SOS for being a clown in a failing to embrace the idea of an audit. And again, where were the democrat voices? Are they just accepting Trump as president so that he can implode, ruin the economy, and make them look good in 2-4 years? Not okay.

And will these problems in Detroit that were uncovered immediately upon the start of the recount be rectified before the next election...of course not.

Michigan has an opportunity to distinguish itself from the rest of the nation as an intelligent, open-minded place. Instead we are looking just as savage as everyone else, if not worse.

Can I give this a thumbs up? I've been appalled at the double-talk and nastiness of the GOP on this issue. As if expressing the right to request a recount, and trying to make sure that every citizen's vote is counted correctly in a very close election, is tantamount to some sort of anti-American insurrection.

But then what else should I have expected from a party that has become a supporter of open voter suppression efforts, and opposes any reforms that would make registration easier and more open, and voting systems standardized, more verifiable, and more accurate?

[JBMcB]

I don't understand the election law provision under which a mismatch in ballots caused the recount to stop. Wasn't that the whole fucking point of the recount-- to simply count each PAPER ballot to account for equipment malfunctions or possible equipment tampering/hacking?

A recount isn't the place to check if your voting system is working or not.
If you want to audit the voting system, then you do an audit. Set up a dry run, run through the process, and check the results. Then compare them with the results of a real election, when you aren't time constrained and can do it properly.

There is going to be some margin of error, preferably pretty low. You want them to be the same during the audit than during the election. You don't do the election first then do the audit - it's basic process control theory.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

Not a bad idea, I like it. I would just add after they're done voting, a prompt pops up and asks them if they would like cash back.

Many of us on the right have been in favor of making the federal tax filing deadline the day before the election. So maybe you could get your return when you vote. It would help turnout!

[EastsideAl]

A recount isn't the place to check if your voting system is working or not.
If you want to audit the voting system, then you do an audit. Set up a dry run, run through the process, and check the results. Then compare them with the results of a real election, when you aren't time constrained and can do it properly.

Except that never happens, and no one is going to appropriate the funds to do it. So a recount procedure is, realistically, the only time we get to closely examine what actually happens with our ballots and how they are counted. I agree with the poster above that uncovering and rectifying such discrepancies would seem to be one of the basic reasons for, and functions of, a recount.

As a Detroit voter, given what's been discovered so far, I certainly think that I have a basic democratic citizenship interest in trying to find out what became of my vote and those of my neighbor and fellow city residents. And in making sure that the votes have been counted as fully and fairly as possible. Although, with Judge Goldsmith's ruling, I guess we don't have a right to find that out, and now almost certainly never will.