- Lack of adequate training
Almost 1/4 of the precincts didn’t intend to hand count the write-in votes at all. Due to our efforts at Sonia’s office – getting volunteers to talk to polling place wardens about it, and in several cases calling the Boston elections department who in turn called the polling places – 65 of 73 precincts did turn in tally sheets, and the 8 that didn’t were counted on Thursday.
But what this indicates is that polling place workers and wardens were not sufficiently trained – it is inconceivable that all of them got the training they needed and yet so many wardens didn’t even know they were going to count the votes.
- Lack of counting procedures
It’s not especially difficult or complex to hand-count votes, but you do need to have a plan for how to do it. Which ballots to count? Where do you put them? Do you count multiple stacks in parallel? How many people for each stack? How do you tally the results? What numbers do you keep track of? Where to put the tally sheets when done?
Obviously, if you don’t even know you’re going to count the votes, you don’t have a plan for how to count the votes – as evidenced by the warden who asked one of Sonia’s volunteers how to do the count. Many polling places that did know they were going to count the votes, also lacked plans. Volunteers at many of them observed confusion as poll workers, with the best of intentions, had to make up procedures on the fly.
- Different standards
The gold standard for hand counting ballots is the “intent of the voter” standard, but it is unclear how many poll workers were aware of that, and the City of Boston cannot yet confirm what standard (if any) they were instructed to use. From what volunteers observed, they used a variety. In particular, some precincts counted ballots with stickers or write-in votes but without the oval filled in (the right thing to do), and others did not.
- Ballots deliberately left uncounted
At some precincts, they decided to tally up all of the clear, error-free votes, but set aside any ballots there might be any question about, even if the vote was clear. They did not tally these ballots for any candidate, and sealed them separately for city hall to handle. City hall was not aware that the precincts expected them to count these ballots, so just used the numbers off the tally sheets as the official tallies.
- Counting outside of public view
At many precincts, perhaps even a majority, observers were barred from watching the count. At many of those precincts where observers were allowed to watch the count, they were made to stand too far away to see what was on the ballots. Massachusetts law talks about having ballots “audibly counted in public view, one by one” for good reason. Public observation is how we know the votes are counted properly.
The Boston Globe is working on an article about all of this, which I think may appear on Monday. If you have a story to tell, email DSlack@globe.com (and comment here!).
Call the Sonia Chang-Diaz campaign at 617-848-0875 and help them collect some signatures this weekend. We’ll need 500 valid signatures, 50 from each of ten wards, by Monday afternoon, to ensure that these votes get counted.
A little over ten years ago, when I lived on Nantucket Island, a friend of mine was the Town Clerk. Even though there was one polling place for the whole town, vote counting was slow. The Town used big paper ballots printed on colored paper which folded out to something the size of a roadmap. Each voter used a fat pencil to put an “X” in a large box next to each candidate’s name.
<
p>
There were some regular senior citizen poll workers who worked every election, but my friend recruited a bunch of us to help with the count on the evening of election day, and again for a recount a few days later. I remember partnering with another friend of mine – one would read the voter’s choices out loud, and the other would mark the tally sheet. There were three unopposed candidates in a row on the ballot, and we started a little song with the snappy lyrics, “Rauschenbach, Turkington, Klute!”
<
p>
The most memorable thing was that we came together again for the recount on the day after the Oklahoma City bombing. I remember feeling so grateful that I had something practical to do – immediately – that so strongly affirmed what it means to be American.
<
p>
I was on the campaign trail here in Pittsfield on 9/11. Everyone suspended campaign activity for a day or two, but when things gradually picked up again, I remember advising voters that the best response I could think of at that moment was, “Let your children see you vote.” I believe we had about 50% turnout for the municipal preliminary election. There were other factors, but maybe a crisis makes us esteem enfranchisement just a little bit more dearly.
<
p>
So my advice to Sonia Chang-Diaz is, “You go, girl.” Recounts are good for America’s soul.
as someone who has been gathering signatures for the recount — and also as someone who has spent considerable time and effort for the Chang-Diaz campaign — I would like to thank and commend the Wilkerson supporters who have given their signatures supporting the recount.
<
p>
As easy as it is to say, “No thanks, Wilkerson won, I’m happy with that result” — and many do say that — it is encouraging to me to meet those Wilkerson supporters who will agree that first and foremost, Boston has got to learn how to faithfully count the votes of its citizens.
Wanted to also mention two points-
<
p>
1) This recount is very important, for all the reasons listed above.
2) “Very important” isn’t enough for the government; the recount won’t happen without meeting the very difficult requirements set by the city (50 certified signatures per ward) by the Monday 5PM deadline. Sonia’s campaign needs all the help it can get. If you can help for any amount of time today or tomorrow, please get on the phone with the campaign.