President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 18, 2007 02:15 AM UTC
16 Comments
Loading ...
Not the decertification – that seems to be a common action in a lot of states now.
The trouble is that all of the Diebold/Premier systems passed when they have been consistently the worst performers in other audits, and that all of the optical scanners were flunked for “inaccurate counting”, which is a charge I’ve never heard from the other audits.
I am very concerned and hope “key legislators” ask questions as well as propose solutions.
There’s always good old-fashioned hand-counting…
and vice versa.
It’s weird. I think there’s a case for decertifying most of this equipment, but Coffman’s choices don’t align with other state’s findings. Nearly the opposite.
Plus, he took so long (partly Gigi Dennis’ fault), it’s unreasonable to expect new certified equipment by August. This is going to be ugly.
This is crap. I am really concerned that many decisions being made in the SOS office are being driven by politics and not the sanctity of the electoral process.
Why has Diebold the favored electoral machine company getting favored treatment by the SOS?
So County Clerks can now just punt?
I hope all who voted for this joke as a SOS are happy, particularly when they cannot hold an election in 2008
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
cannot use their voting machines.
Run Mike Run.
This will make you popular with R voters in the 6th CD, but the rest of us are left holding the bag.
See the RMN article: http://www.rockymountainnews.c…
There are a number of large counties affected by this ruling. Are we getting to the point in this country that voting by individual citizens is just not that important? Are we slowly giving up the right to elect our leaders and vote on ballot issues? Are we content that “someone else” is going to make those important decisions for us? It’s one thing for the vote counting to be challenged in a particular locale, but for our SOS to wholesale decertify the machinery of elections is rather frightening.
Not just these, but generally?
I figure they go to third world countries where the people don’t expect an accurate vote anyway.
“President for Life Swisbancoun announces an overwhelming approval of his policies.”
Much better to face up to it than to pretend it works. I am surprised that the Diebold machines passed though…
but, not being one to pay attention to this stuff all that closely, I have to wonder why we embrace technology in literally every other arena of life…but not voting. When I bother to think about it, it boggles my mind; hence, the reason I try not to think about it all that much…
You accept the fact that lines drop, connections are bad, calls sometimes fail – but what you get for the price is worth it. A lot of software falls in that category, it’s imperfect but it’s not worth the cost of making it perfect.
Now look at medical equipment, airplanes, voting. In those places failure is a very expensive issue and the effort needs to be made to make the software perfect.
Well, for medical equipment and flight software, extraordinary effort is put in to insure 99.9999% perfection. And it achieves that goal.
But for voting software, it’s the people who weren’t good enough for the cell phone software writing it. No one dies (not directly anyways) when they screw it up so you have buggy imperfect software in use for voting machines.
And by and large running on an operating system (Windows or Linux) that would never be allowed in any piece of medical equipment, airplane, nuclear reactor, etc.
And we know that how? How valid were those elections last month in Denver? Deadline has passed for losing candidates to protest – a very expensive process….to protest. Very expensive to pay those increased taxes…what a gd mess.
Diebold…isn’t that Bush’s guy who said he was commited to getting Bush elected?
The machines that are the subject of this de-certification are the touch-screens we used in 2006, which had a host of other problems.
In the 2007 elections in Denver these were all-mail ballot elections so the only “machines” which were used were the scanners that count paper ballots. Denver’s version of that machine was not among the de-certified.
Furthermore, an audit of the election done aftrewards matched 100% what was written on the paper ballots to what he scanners read.
So I have a very high degree of confidence that those ballots that arrived at the County Clerk’s Office were counted accurately.
There will be a bill in this upcoming legislature session to hold the 2008 elections also as all-mail ballot elections. That will get around the de-certification problem in most counties.
I appreciate the clarification. But, there have been problems with the optical scanners. Tell us more about the audit which was done after the 2007 elections. Who did the audit? And how were audits done? By hand and eye? If we indeed had a paper trail, that is really important information. But I can’t understand the mechanics.
The audit is done by checking a small percent (1 or 2 I believe) of the ballots. Which ones that are checked are selected by a random selection process administered by the Sec. of State. There is some criteria for the “random sample”. All races and all ballot styles must be included. In an all mail election, the ramdom sample will say something like “verify the City Council district 3 race on batch 37”.
The selected ballots are then counted by hand and the results of that count is compared to how the same ballots were counted by the optical scanner. If they match, groovy. If they do not, a fuller audit of all the ballots must take place (this has never happened in Denver).
Hope this clears the water a bit.
Thank you.