Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jennings camp expert testifies on first day of election suit hearing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-19-06 06:54 PM
Original message
Jennings camp expert testifies on first day of election suit hearing
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061219/BREAKING/61219012&start=1

By LLOYD DUNKELBERGER






TALLAHASSEE - A political science professor from MIT testified Tuesday that Democrat Christine Jennings would have won the Congressional District 13 race by as much as 3,100 votes if there had not be an “excessive” undervote in the election in Sarasota County.

As a witness for Jennings, Charles Stewart estimated that there were as many as 14,000 excessive undervotes in the race, where Republican Vern Buchanan has been declared the winner by a 369-vote margin. Stewart also discounted theories that negative publicity about the race or a confusing ballot design led to the large undervote. He said his analysis showed it was more likely caused by the electronic touch-screen machines malfunctioning.

His testimony came at the beginning of a two-day hearing where Jennings is asking a Leon County circuit court to order Election System & Software Inc. to disclose the computer codes it used to run the machines, arguing that a review of the code could show a flaw in the system. Under questioning from an ES&S lawyer, Stewart also testified that he could not say the high undervote was due to a “computer bug” or hardware problem.

Miguel De Grandy, a lawyer for ES&S, called the arguments raised by Jennings’ experts “mere academic speculation.” He said Jennings has failed to show the voting machines malfunctioned, citing the latest state review of the equipment that showed they were “100 percent” accurate on election day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jrlentini Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-20-06 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Charles Stewart converted from Touchscreen believer
If you google "Charles Stewart", his MIT pages are the #2 and #3 hits. It turns out that Charles Stewart was actually quite bullish on new voting technologies including touchscreen machines. He's willing to involve himself in this case and effectively undermine a previous argument of his because he realizes that the protection of over 14,000 voters' rights is more important than not proving wrong something he wrote only last year. http://web.mit.edu/cstewart/www/papers/measuring_2.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 01:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC