CHANGE MY LOCATION
Ballot-counting will be around-the-clock
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
The Department of Elections will visually inspect an anticipated 200,000-plus ballots 24 hours a day following Election Day in November.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - It will be an around-the-clock operation beginning Nov. 6, with thousands of ballots being counted 24 hours a day by city staff in hopes of getting the majority of votes processed within one week, San Francisco’s election chief told Mayor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday. The City’s voting machines have been conditionally certified this election. The strict restrictions for their use will force a time-consuming visual inspection of all ballots submitted in the upcoming Nov. 6 election.
The tedious job falls on the shoulders of the Department of Elections and its director, John Arntz, who told the mayor Tuesday that the department will work 24/7 and seek to have 65 percent of all absentee ballots and 75 percent of all polling-place ballots counted by the Friday following Election Day.
Last month, The City learned that the central computers at the main election office could be operated to tabulate ballots, but not the 561 machines used at the precincts.
Because the state requires San Francisco officials to also visually inspect all ballots before putting them through the central system, Arntz said The City would only be able to count about 10,000 votes a day.
With an anticipated 200,000-plus ballots, Arntz says it will be three weeks before all the ballots were tabulated.
At a special meeting of the Elections Commission on Wednesday night, commissioners and members of the public said they didn’t need a fast count and that they were more concerned about an accurate and transparent count.
Arntz told commissioners that he hasn’t yet calculated the cost for the careful counting. In his memo to Newsom, Arntz noted that the state is requiring the company that provides The City with its electronic voting equipment, Election Systems and Software, or ES&S, to pick up the tab.
The Examiner first reported the potential disaster in May, shortly after Secretary of State Debra Bowen — whose office oversees elections — sent a letter to ES&S, to say her office would not certify the equipment. Bowen’s spokesperson told The Examiner in July that the ES&S system is “seriously flawed.”
The City needs to find a long-term solution, otherwise it will be in the same boat again come the February 2008 election, Newsom said Wednesday.
Comments from Examiner Readers
12:31 AM MST on Sun., Nov. 11, 2007 re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
12:32 AM MST on Wed., Nov. 7, 2007
re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
9:26 PM MST on Sat., Nov. 3, 2007
re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
4:34 PM MST on Sat., Nov. 3, 2007
re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
2:26 PM MST on Sat., Nov. 3, 2007
re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
1:58 PM MST on Sat., Nov. 3, 2007
re: "Another setback for S.F. ballot-counting"
Report as inappropriate
9:18 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 2, 2007
re: "Supes could revisit voting-machine contract"
Report as inappropriate
2:00 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 2, 2007
re: "Ballot-counting will be around-the-clock"
Report as inappropriate
8:34 PM MST on Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
re: "Another setback for S.F. ballot-counting"
Report as inappropriate
6:26 AM MST on Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
re: "Yet another setback for S.F. ballot-counting"
Report as inappropriate
4:43 PM MST on Fri., Oct. 5, 2007
re: "Ballot-counting will be around-the-clock"
Report as inappropriate
7:07 PM MST on Thu., Oct. 4, 2007
re: "Ballot-counting will be around-the-clock"
Report as inappropriate
7:01 PM MST on Thu., Oct. 4, 2007
re: "Ballot-counting will be around-the-clock"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Anyone who suggests that the modern world does not rely on electronic counting and audits is foolish and naive. Our whole economic system is based on the accuracy of modern technology. Be it open source or a Microsoft based system, far better then hand counts. Our current system approved by Debra Bowen uses several audits to insure the accuracy of the first count.
195 agree | 194 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Let's recap why San Francisco is having a hand count: Chris Daly at the request of Alan Dechert, Brent Turner and Alec Bash tabled the contract for a new voting system. Their group supports and is financially supported by a for-profit company called Open Voting Solutions: a company that has never performed a single election and can’t get through Federal or State certification. Great work guys! In your attempt to force your garage built system down our throats, you have only shaken our confidence more about how our City counts our votes. So step in line with the likes of James Baker and Kathleen Harris, as just another group that has disenfranchised a bunch of voters and our right to fair and honest elections. Now I know why the Pew Charitable Trust tuned these yahoos and their crack-pot scheme down for support. Once again, great work screwing things up for the rest of us.
187 agree | 203 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
No on H said:
I agree with the point on hand counts. What does happen if Prop H is close and Don Fisher and his attack dog Jim Sutton descends on the Department like James Baker in Florida? Will high-priced election attorneys throw out the intent of the voters? Wasn't that the real problem of 2000, that lawyers and judges decided the election? I have a felling this election is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. So why are we keeping ES&S for another year?
173 agree | 212 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jiminy Cricket said:
As a blind voter, I would rather have a night at the Mark Hopkins and a limo ride to the poll rather than use those insecure machines- and that would save money. And i don't like having the lousy machines blamed on the disabled- The groups that represent us are off point on this one- maybe someone will investigate how this happenned.
188 agree | 141 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco is a progressive city that values everyone’s right to vote. So I am blown away how certain activist like to gloss over the rights of one group for their own self serving views. Perhaps these election activists need to be reminded that the American with Disabilities Act affirms certain rights to the disabled, one of those rights is the use of electronic voting machines with touch screens. These machines are also essential for people who are not comfortable voting in English. What San Francisco needs is a real voting-system. Despite what some folks think, counting ballots by hand is not a practical solution, especially with rank-choice voting. We also need more that a bunch of old desktop computers as some open-source vendors have suggested. People want the optical scan system which reads whatever people using absentee ballots have lying around. We also don't want drawn-out handcounts, and we want to give the disabled the tools they are promised by the ADA.
193 agree | 154 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Former S.F. Resident said:
To the writer "Thank you Debra" I agree with your comments regarding the Secretary of State. Clearly, the Board of Supervisors actions in extending the contract with ES&S was premature and ill-advised.
142 agree | 142 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I agree with Ned to a point. However, the real crime is being pushed by a guy named Alan Deckurt and his group that is nothing more then a front for a for-profit company called Open Voting Solutions. This company has never as much as ran a junior high-school election. Now this group of con-artist has been lobbying San Francisco for millions of dollars for a computerized system that doesn’t even exist. And further more is not even open source since it relies on Microsoft systems to run. What San Franciscans want is a real solution, not crack-pot schemes. In addition, we can not have hand counts that allow volunteers to remark ballots which are what ES&S has stuck us with. Now that Sequoia is agreeing to both Open Source and code review, I say lets get them in place before San Francisco screws up the presidential elections that are right around the corner.
200 agree | 200 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Ned in Noe said:
I don't know what all the fuss is about- The top to bottom review said all these systems were deplorable- Why in heaven's name would any county ever buy more of them ? It seems like a non sequitor... SF has been the necessary leader nationally. I hope we continue to be and don't succumb to the hoodlums running these wicked games. All of them should be investigated by the law for the way they have plundered and jeopardized our democracy.- If we can't get a proper vote count that inspires voter confidence, I fear all is lost. Ned in Noe
188 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Once again, the Board of Supervisors got it wrong? ES&S should be criminally prosecuted for selling San Francisco voting machines that were not certified. And I hope that everyone will remember it was Chris Daly who gave them a multi-million dollar sole-source contract requiring the City to use the same machines that he knew were not certified. And why do people think that hand counts are the best way to go? Chris Burdy should go live with the Amish and renounce all the technological advancement of the last two centuries. Btw- if Prop H or A are too close to call, is anyone worried that Don Fisher will pay for an army of attorneys to bring Florida style electoral justice to our fair city.
182 agree | 184 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Knot2brite said:
The three offices in San Francisco for which there is to be an election are for Mayor, District Attorney and Sheriff. The incumbents in those offices are running virtually unopposed, meaning they will all be re-elected. Why would it make sense for any voter to use ranked choice voting in the case of DA when there's only one candidate on the ballot in the first place? There are only two candidates for Sheriff so how could a voter possibly use ranked choice voting? For Sheriff it's either A: The Incumbent or B: The Challenger, just like, uh, A RUNOFF between two Candidates. However in the Mayoral contest the local election law has been interpreted by some morons to mean that if I as a voter choose not to vote for at least three candidates then a government worker will have to either hand-count or re-mark my ballot. I mean is this really what is considered to be a Democratic process? Choice #1:Stupid; Choice #2 Waste of time and money; Choice #3 Stupid Waste of Time and money.
203 agree | 195 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Chris Brudy said:
Not only can the city hire temps, but volunteers would come out of the woodwork to help count. In NH, counts are done before 12 midnight. See OpEd News, search Nancy Tobi, Handcount Handbook. The argument that hand counts take too long is specious. How did we do it before machines, anyway? Handcounts are self-auditing, 99.99% accurate, and cost less than buying, programming and maintaining scanners. California is saving the nation, and should toss the machines.
198 agree | 165 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Thank you Debra said:
Your review of our voting systems in California is in the forefront of protecting our democracy. Seems the county officials who are complaining the loudest are most invested in these corrupt machine companies. It can't possibly cost more to count the votes accurately than it costs to buy machines that flip votes.
201 agree | 218 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
It's about time. What's the rush? I'd rather wait a full month and know the candidate really one than get a rush to judgment the next day that has no paper ballots behind it. Unaudited systems are a disaster in any business. What idiots thought they could get away with that with our vote??
219 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree