The AP distributed an article bylined J. Seewer entitled “Ohio ends recount; Kerry nets 300 votes“ on December 29, 2004 that is highly misleading and demands rebuttal. Those of us in Washington State, where recounting has become a major spectator sport, understand that the term demands careful qualification. The steps taken in Ohio bear only limited resemblance to a true “recount.” For one thing, leaving aside the many reports of voter suppression, many of the Ohio votes were cast with electronic voting equipment that does not produce any verifiable paper record of the vote. This eliminates the possibility of any recount of those votes from the start. It also makes those votes a prime target for mischief since no followup is possible.

The vote-checking done in Ohio was generally confined to ballots from precincts representing 3% of the vote in each county. Thus this operation addressed only a tiny fraction of the actual ballots cast throughout the state. It might have been a “test” or a “sample,” but it was not a “recount.” By making the assertion that the “recount” in Ohio reduced Bush’s margin by about 300 votes, the article adds to the miscommunication. Did the selective test by itself result in a reduction in the margin of 300 votes, or is that the projected change for the whole state based on the test?

By not explaining to the reader the actual circumstances in Ohio, this article must be considered incomplete and negligent.

Incidentally, there’s considerable evidence that aside from serious deficiencies and limitations as noted above the Ohio “recount” violated state law. It has been reported that the requirement that the precincts to be recounted must be chosen at random was not complied with. If true, a strong case could be made that the “recount” was fundamentally invalid.