Experts Shouldn’t Be Needed To Call Outcome of Election

Op-Ed by Howard Stanislevic:

Published in the Albany Times-Union 1/1/11:

The Court of Appeals’ decision in the state Senate District 7 case was flawed. Important testimony from experts — including mine — was never heard in its entirety. But the notion that our vote-counting problems would be solved if only we had full hand recounts of all very close elections is also flawed, and would not protect the interests of New York’s candidates and voters.

The unheard expert testimony called for a 90 percent initial hand count of that contest because it was so close, among other reasons.

But since machine errors had already been found in a 3 percent hand count, the experts upped their percentage to 100 percent to be certain of the winner. The trial court judge, however, refused to hear that testimony, and no higher court ordered him to consider it.

Full hand counts of close elections are needed because a narrow victory margin, and possibly a winning candidate, reported by a computerized voting system may be incorrect.

Read the full article at this link.

Comments are closed.

  • Pages

  • %d bloggers like this: