I’ll visit the Recount this afternoon and post the final results soon after they are known. – RW

My only issue with the officials at the Count is how they handle the flow of information when the election results first are known to them. I’m very familiar with the election tabulation software and the simple truth is that the complete round-by-round results could be publicly displayed immediately with no ill effects. There really is no basis for their delay of sometimes an hour while they fiddle and diddle. The situation is that you have a room full of observers and candidates eager to hear the results while several election officials and City administration people are privately digesting the results and not letting on what they know. This can be very aggravating.

My ideal setup would be to have a video display connected directly to one of the computers that tabulates the results and have everyone – election officials and spectators alike – all see the results immediately as they become available. If ever there is a glitch, there is nothing wrong with having the public be aware of it. You cannot have too much transparency when it comes to election results.

I’ve always believed strongly that if there is data available, it should be shared right away. Only a sicko bureaucrat withholds public information, especially on elections.

In a computerized Cambridge PR election, the most difficult task is the matching of the original paper ballots with the electronic ballot data produced by the scanners that was used in the tabulation. The law requires that the original ballot order be respected to the maximum extent possible. This can make a difference in an election in which any candidates have a surplus of ballots, but this was not the case this year. It can also make a difference in any round of transfers during which any candidates are elected. Fortunately, in this year’s School Committee election it was only during the Alan Steinert transfer that candidates were elected (other than at the very end), so it is really only necessary to ensure that those ballots (originally 1495 of them) are properly sequenced. It is also, in principle, not necessary to review any of the auxiliary ballots scanned after Election Day because they have already been reviewed by the election commissioners for voter intent.

So, in principle, this recount should consist of four parts. The first part should be the sorting of ballots by #1 votes and identification and reconciliation of any differences between this and the original data. The second part should be the transfers up to the point where Alan Steinert is defeated (a bit more than 500 ballots). The third part should be the matching of the Steinert paper ballots with the original ballot data and correct sequencing of those ballots. The last necessary part would then be the transfer of the Steinert ballots. At the end of that, it will be determined if Patty Nolan is still ahead of Joe Grassi and the outcome will be determined.

Some of this could be done by editing the ballot data files as necessary (and of course keeping the originals) and doing the count by computer, but this is a decision that would have to be acceptable to the affected candidates.

I have examined the ballot data and there are relatively few ballots that could possibly have undiscovered errors (such as an apparent missed preference possibly caused by a voter incorrectly filling an oval). Furthermore, the correction of any such errors after visual inspection of the ballots will likely not favor any one candidate, so my estimate is that a recount will likely result in at most a tiny change in the 18 vote difference between Patty Nolan and Joe Grassi (perhaps a couple of votes).

On the other hand, recounts can have a positive effect in that they can discover problems that can be cured in future elections. For example, in the last recount (2001) there were a number of ballots that appeared to give #1 votes to both Fred Fantini and Joe Grassi but which were discovered to have one of them chosen, then crossed out, then the other one chosen. The scanner, of course, only sees that both ovals are filled in and counts this as an overvote which could not be credited to either candidate. Today, the scanners are programmed to reject all ballots containing overvotes so that the voter can correct the error. If the voter still chooses to cast such a ballot, it will be included with the auxiliary ballots that are visually inspected for voter intent. All such ballots this year have already been inspected, so these should not, in principle, require any additional review.

If your candidate gets a surplus and your ballot gets picked for transfer but is bulleted it doesn’t transfer and instead someone else’s does. If their next vote is for someone you would have rated very low then you missed your chance to get your vote to count for another person who you liked. You had nothing to lose since your first choice won.

If your candidate resigns or dies then his or her ballots get transferred to the next available choice. If you bulleted you’ve lost your say in the replacement choice. Considering this has occurred twice recently (Michael Sullivan in 2007 and Brian Murphy this year) it is a real possibility.

I think the Election Commission brochure about PR is very clinical and detailed and doesn’t help many people who are unfamiliar with the system to understand enough about to help them figure out why voting many choices is worth it to them.

Regarding bulleted ballots this election cycle – they ranged from 4.5% of Kelly’s #1 ballots to almost 20% of Toomey’s. Average is about 10% of total ballots cast. I find it interesting that 7.5% of Decker’s 2009 #1 ballots were bulleted. In 2007 5.6% were bulleted and in 2005 4.9% were. Any significance?