Exclusive | Inside LA County election vote-counting facility with rows of empty desks despite $336M budget 66%

By Jamie Paige0%

6/4/2026, 1:39:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 24% saturation with 134 hits. Analysis detected 1,494 faulty-reasoning hits from 558 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.2% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,433 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.00% of the article peer group.

As the vote-count totals crawl across Los Angeles and California, The California Post visited the county’s 144,000-square-foot ballot processing facility Thursday, which showed dozens of empty work stations. 
The scene at the warehouse appeared at odds with the mounting pressure to process hundreds of thousands of remaining ballots. 
County officials announced Wednesday night that just 77,521 additional ballots had been processed since June 2 election night, but an estimated 713,180 ballots are still outstanding. 
Multiple sections of chairs were unoccupied. 
In one area, where ballots that cannot be automatically read by scanners are reviewed by election workers, roughly 25 bins of ballots appeared ready for processing while no employees were seated at nearby desks. 
In another section where workers open envelopes and prepare ballots for counting, The Post observed about 75 employees working, despite the area being capable of accommodating more than twice that number. 
Los Angeles County’s election operation is enormous by any measure. 
Los Angeles County’s voter rolls exceed 5.8 million people, more registered voters than the populations of most US states. 
The Post asked the Registrar’s Office how many employees are currently assigned to ballot processing, whether staffing vacancies exist, why numerous workstations appeared empty despite the large backlog, and whether additional staffing could accelerate the count. 
When at the facility, The Post asked an election center staff member about the rows of unused workstations despite a massive ballot backlog. 
The employee told us not to be “fooled by what you see. 
” When pressed to elaborate, the staff member offered no further explanation and walked away. 
Nico Ruderman, a Venice Neighborhood Council member and former California State Senate candidate, said that prolonged vote counts risk eroding public confidence in elections. 
“The system that has been put in place with mail-in ballots and the amount of time it takes to count them gives people room to question our elections, and rightfully so,” Ruderman said. 
“All eyes are on our elections right now, especially with such a close election,” he said. 
“Ours is taking forever because of incompetency and a poorly designed system. 
This is unnecessarily long, and it’s a design flaw. 
It’s not long because it needs to be. 
It’s long because that’s how the system was designed. 
” 
Ruderman said he supports voting by mail but believes California should tighten its election rules. 
“We need to make sure we have systems in place where all ballots are received by Election Day,” he said. 
“Mail-in ballots should be requested, not automatically sent to everyone on the voter rolls. 
I believe in mail-in ballots. 
I used to travel frequently, and absentee ballots serve an important purpose. 
But there’s a difference between absentee voting and automatically mailing ballots to everyone. 
” 
He added: “We should make it easy to vote, but we shouldn’t make it easy for ballot harvesting or election fraud to occur. 
” 
Several other states that also held elections Tuesday are nearly finished counting. 
New Jersey has reported roughly 93% of ballots counted, while New Mexico and Montana are approaching 98%. 
The next Los Angeles County ballot count update is expected Thursday evening, but with more than 700,000 ballots still outstanding, experts say it could be weeks before voters know which candidates will advance to the November ballot. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Jamie Paige: 5.3%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Jamie Paige: 5.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic17.6%This article: 5.6%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 12.9%Jamie Paige: 14.3%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.2%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.5%Jamie Paige: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias18.5%This article: 21.5%Jamie Paige: 15.8%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias21.5%This article: 0.9%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Jamie Paige: 2.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 1.8%Jamie Paige: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.8%This article: 2.2%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 2.5%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.0%Jamie Paige: 2.9%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority10.0%This article: 11.6%Jamie Paige: 2.7%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma11.6%This article: 4.1%Jamie Paige: 1.5%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 1.6%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.6%This article: 22.0%Jamie Paige: 8.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization22.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 9.3%Jamie Paige: 9.5%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 9.0%Jamie Paige: 1.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question9.0%This article: 4.7%Jamie Paige: 3.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.7%Jamie Paige: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.6%Jamie Paige: 0.6%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division5.6%This article: 6.1%Jamie Paige: 4.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Jamie Paige: 2.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 2.7%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity2.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.2%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Jamie Paige: 2.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 10.8%Jamie Paige: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.8%This article: 24.0%Jamie Paige: 12.5%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice24.0%This article: 16.1%Jamie Paige: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination16.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 0.9%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 4.7%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Paige: 1.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

558 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker39%attributed speech342writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 12 words • 100.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 20 words • 100.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 14 words • 100.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 5 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 13 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 23 words • 100.0% coverageNico Ruderman • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nico Ruderman

99%flagged-word coverage
216 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+41.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nico Ruderman: 41.7%41.7%Biased Writer Voice-39.2 ptsWriter: 39.2%Nico Ruderman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-17.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%Nico Ruderman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.1 ptsWriter: 11.7%Nico Ruderman: 5.6%5.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.