John Hawkinson
@johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Cambridge, MA freelance reporter, usually for @CambridgeDay.
MIT; public recs; data; legal news
Lately: immigration.
jhawk@alum.mit.edu
617.797.0250
MIT; public recs; data; legal news
Lately: immigration.
jhawk@alum.mit.edu
617.797.0250
The above is a little unfair…turns out if you scrolled down (do people scroll down? Apparently I did not!) the Friday election results are linked to but not characterized: "Late Addition: 2025 Municipal Election Unofficial Results Update (11/7)"
November 10, 2025 at 12:24 AM
The above is a little unfair…turns out if you scrolled down (do people scroll down? Apparently I did not!) the Friday election results are linked to but not characterized: "Late Addition: 2025 Municipal Election Unofficial Results Update (11/7)"
The Calderon plaintiffs are the non-citizen spouses of citizens who are going through the I130 provisional waiver process to seek adjustment of status to normalize their immigration status.
So: plaintiffs are immigrants.
So: plaintiffs are immigrants.
November 9, 2025 at 9:34 PM
The Calderon plaintiffs are the non-citizen spouses of citizens who are going through the I130 provisional waiver process to seek adjustment of status to normalize their immigration status.
So: plaintiffs are immigrants.
So: plaintiffs are immigrants.
You certainly CANNOT assume that just because many Wilson voters ranked Simmons next, that therefore many Simmons voters will rank Wilson next.
But it does seem a likely possibility and rationally related to their communities.
But it does seem a likely possibility and rationally related to their communities.
November 8, 2025 at 10:27 AM
You certainly CANNOT assume that just because many Wilson voters ranked Simmons next, that therefore many Simmons voters will rank Wilson next.
But it does seem a likely possibility and rationally related to their communities.
But it does seem a likely possibility and rationally related to their communities.
It's worth emphasizing this—in proportional representation, the replacement for a given candidate is the next person THAT CANDIDATE's voters ranked.
So depending on who resigns, the answer is different.
That said, if your question is about Denise Simmons, she got the most xfers from Ayesha Wilson.
So depending on who resigns, the answer is different.
That said, if your question is about Denise Simmons, she got the most xfers from Ayesha Wilson.
November 8, 2025 at 10:25 AM
It's worth emphasizing this—in proportional representation, the replacement for a given candidate is the next person THAT CANDIDATE's voters ranked.
So depending on who resigns, the answer is different.
That said, if your question is about Denise Simmons, she got the most xfers from Ayesha Wilson.
So depending on who resigns, the answer is different.
That said, if your question is about Denise Simmons, she got the most xfers from Ayesha Wilson.
Ugh, broke the thread! Resumed here: bsky.app/profile/john...
The room is getting loud, which might mean we're almost there.
November 8, 2025 at 10:22 AM
Ugh, broke the thread! Resumed here: bsky.app/profile/john...
At 7pm, the Cambridge "daily update" email went out.
Notice anything missing compared to, say, the day after election day?
Notice anything missing compared to, say, the day after election day?
November 8, 2025 at 1:55 AM
At 7pm, the Cambridge "daily update" email went out.
Notice anything missing compared to, say, the day after election day?
Notice anything missing compared to, say, the day after election day?
My writeup of the #cambma Election clusterfuck for @cambridgeday:
November 8, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Ah. I would speculate it was my above scenario but someone not only failed to put it in the SPOILED envelope but also failed to write SPOILED on it.
Still…man.
Still…man.
November 8, 2025 at 1:31 AM
Ah. I would speculate it was my above scenario but someone not only failed to put it in the SPOILED envelope but also failed to write SPOILED on it.
Still…man.
Still…man.
Two answers:
1) That's not what the law says
2) It wouldn't help — a "recount" usually re-inspects physical ballots, but this was not a physical ballot problem. It was telling the summary tabulating software to look at extra files that were used during testing in addition to election night votes.
1) That's not what the law says
2) It wouldn't help — a "recount" usually re-inspects physical ballots, but this was not a physical ballot problem. It was telling the summary tabulating software to look at extra files that were used during testing in addition to election night votes.
November 8, 2025 at 1:22 AM
Two answers:
1) That's not what the law says
2) It wouldn't help — a "recount" usually re-inspects physical ballots, but this was not a physical ballot problem. It was telling the summary tabulating software to look at extra files that were used during testing in addition to election night votes.
1) That's not what the law says
2) It wouldn't help — a "recount" usually re-inspects physical ballots, but this was not a physical ballot problem. It was telling the summary tabulating software to look at extra files that were used during testing in addition to election night votes.
I don't think it is potentially related. Test deck ballots were not released "into the wild" it was just a file on the computer.
But……what?
Was it labelled SPOILED? i.e. another voter made a mistake and traded their mistaken ballot for a new one and they put the spoiled ballot in the wrong stack?
But……what?
Was it labelled SPOILED? i.e. another voter made a mistake and traded their mistaken ballot for a new one and they put the spoiled ballot in the wrong stack?
November 8, 2025 at 1:21 AM
I don't think it is potentially related. Test deck ballots were not released "into the wild" it was just a file on the computer.
But……what?
Was it labelled SPOILED? i.e. another voter made a mistake and traded their mistaken ballot for a new one and they put the spoiled ballot in the wrong stack?
But……what?
Was it labelled SPOILED? i.e. another voter made a mistake and traded their mistaken ballot for a new one and they put the spoiled ballot in the wrong stack?
Correct, they don't go back and change it.
This process is modeled based on how it was done by hand in the 1940s, not based on what computers could easily do.
The charter change (which passed) will enable a switch to methods that seem superficially more pleasing to the eye.
This process is modeled based on how it was done by hand in the 1940s, not based on what computers could easily do.
The charter change (which passed) will enable a switch to methods that seem superficially more pleasing to the eye.
November 8, 2025 at 1:11 AM
Correct, they don't go back and change it.
This process is modeled based on how it was done by hand in the 1940s, not based on what computers could easily do.
The charter change (which passed) will enable a switch to methods that seem superficially more pleasing to the eye.
This process is modeled based on how it was done by hand in the 1940s, not based on what computers could easily do.
The charter change (which passed) will enable a switch to methods that seem superficially more pleasing to the eye.
I do not see a question.
November 8, 2025 at 1:03 AM
I do not see a question.
So the 2863-2687=176 votes get inserted at the end of their precinct in his pile.
So pulling the 8th, 16th ballot is probably the same, but the the 800th, 808th, 816th ballots will have shifted.
That's the non-determinism.
Clear enough?
So pulling the 8th, 16th ballot is probably the same, but the the 800th, 808th, 816th ballots will have shifted.
That's the non-determinism.
Clear enough?
November 8, 2025 at 1:00 AM
So the 2863-2687=176 votes get inserted at the end of their precinct in his pile.
So pulling the 8th, 16th ballot is probably the same, but the the 800th, 808th, 816th ballots will have shifted.
That's the non-determinism.
Clear enough?
So pulling the 8th, 16th ballot is probably the same, but the the 800th, 808th, 816th ballots will have shifted.
That's the non-determinism.
Clear enough?
I finally have a free moment. Was the linked explanation sufficient?
McGovern got 2863 #1 votes, quota=2536, his surplus 327 gets distributed. 2863/327 is 8.8, so take every 8th ballot from his pile. But his pile is by precinct in order of the precinct random draw. On Tue it was 2687 #1 votes.
McGovern got 2863 #1 votes, quota=2536, his surplus 327 gets distributed. 2863/327 is 8.8, so take every 8th ballot from his pile. But his pile is by precinct in order of the precinct random draw. On Tue it was 2687 #1 votes.
November 8, 2025 at 12:58 AM
I finally have a free moment. Was the linked explanation sufficient?
McGovern got 2863 #1 votes, quota=2536, his surplus 327 gets distributed. 2863/327 is 8.8, so take every 8th ballot from his pile. But his pile is by precinct in order of the precinct random draw. On Tue it was 2687 #1 votes.
McGovern got 2863 #1 votes, quota=2536, his surplus 327 gets distributed. 2863/327 is 8.8, so take every 8th ballot from his pile. But his pile is by precinct in order of the precinct random draw. On Tue it was 2687 #1 votes.
There was no inspection of ballots here.
I think this was just a regular part of the auditing process to determine that the total number of ballots reflected on the machine tapes did not match the total number of ballots in the count.
Theoretically we could have caught this from my spreadsheet?
I think this was just a regular part of the auditing process to determine that the total number of ballots reflected on the machine tapes did not match the total number of ballots in the count.
Theoretically we could have caught this from my spreadsheet?
November 8, 2025 at 12:37 AM
There was no inspection of ballots here.
I think this was just a regular part of the auditing process to determine that the total number of ballots reflected on the machine tapes did not match the total number of ballots in the count.
Theoretically we could have caught this from my spreadsheet?
I think this was just a regular part of the auditing process to determine that the total number of ballots reflected on the machine tapes did not match the total number of ballots in the count.
Theoretically we could have caught this from my spreadsheet?
The question is challenging — probably impossible — to answer from the information we have now. When the full ballot data is released (I think on Nov. 14), it will be trivial to run that analysis (which I did for the 2023 election).
You could take guesses now but they'd be guesses.
You could take guesses now but they'd be guesses.
November 8, 2025 at 12:36 AM
The question is challenging — probably impossible — to answer from the information we have now. When the full ballot data is released (I think on Nov. 14), it will be trivial to run that analysis (which I did for the 2023 election).
You could take guesses now but they'd be guesses.
You could take guesses now but they'd be guesses.
In elections, a "risk-limiting audit" is a very specific thing and this is not it. It involves an audit of actual ballots and the number of ballots to audit is determined by the closeness of the race.
I don't think there's an interpretation that covers this case.
I don't think there's an interpretation that covers this case.
November 8, 2025 at 12:07 AM
In elections, a "risk-limiting audit" is a very specific thing and this is not it. It involves an audit of actual ballots and the number of ballots to audit is determined by the closeness of the race.
I don't think there's an interpretation that covers this case.
I don't think there's an interpretation that covers this case.
"Through its proactive auditing process, the Election Commission determined that ballots used for testing were not fully cleared from the Election Management System by the vendor in advance of the Municipal Election on November 4, 2025."
I don't know how they can call it "proactive."
I don't know how they can call it "proactive."
November 7, 2025 at 11:56 PM
"Through its proactive auditing process, the Election Commission determined that ballots used for testing were not fully cleared from the Election Management System by the vendor in advance of the Municipal Election on November 4, 2025."
I don't know how they can call it "proactive."
I don't know how they can call it "proactive."
In a statement, the City blames "the vendor":
November 7, 2025 at 11:56 PM
In a statement, the City blames "the vendor":
Full HTML rounds breakdown here, posted by the City: www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/...
2025 Municipal Election Unofficial Results - November - 7th Update
The following results are unofficial as of Friday, November 7, 2025. Write-in and auxiliary ballots are included in the results; provisional and mailed overseas absentee ballots are not included.
www.cambridgema.gov
November 7, 2025 at 11:45 PM
Full HTML rounds breakdown here, posted by the City: www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/...
and ballot question
November 7, 2025 at 11:07 PM
and ballot question
SCHOOL COMMITTEE UNOFFICIAL
November 7, 2025 at 11:06 PM
SCHOOL COMMITTEE UNOFFICIAL