BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 01:23 AM

Yes, Charley, I do get the sense from all the news out of Maine that in part the huge turnout caused a lot of the Chaos. Good on the one hand, not so good on the other.

Big Mick: thanks. I'm sure we'll both be voting for the same candidate in November.

I agree that "progressive" is a confusing term. It is, of course, what many of these people call themselves, but we can't go by that. I am referring to Democrats who do NOT want to go with well-connected, special interest-funded insider candidates.

Gareth, I've spent some time with professional security consultants who have taught me to think critically about security issues. One point they make frequently is that your security breaches will be directly proportional to the degree of opportunity built into the system. It's pretty naive to suggest that a sealed ballot box is an impregnable security device, if you give yourself 72 hours of private, unobserved opportunity to crack it.

Secondly, she is eventually going to open the box and count the ballots. Depending on the regs as to how that event is performed, who is present, and how closely they observe the box before she opens it, there may be no chance for anyone but her to look at the box again until it's officially opened. In that case, it won't matter how careful she is.

As to your stuffing question, the result could be altered by throwing out all the old ballots and replacing them with new forged ones. Blank ballots cannot be THAT difficult to obtain or indeed to make. Also, in some caucus sites in a state like Maine (obviously not Portland) we are literally talking about 25 people who show up. Caucuses in general draw fewer voters than primaries.

Again, I'm not accusing any of these people of actually doing this. I'm just suggesting it would be better to have a system with fewer opportunities.

And, finally, as to your point that The US of A and the World would be better served by you utilising your efforts to supporting a
Democratic Candidate who can defoliate the Shrub rather than whinging; that's exactly my plan. I think, as I said above, that Kerry is NOT that candidate. Despite what the media are telling you now, the man is a disaster in many ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:19 PM

Wow! Things were a lot more confusing in Portland than anyone has reported, after I've talked with some music friends who attended the caucus. Imagine 250 people from one precinct trying to jam into a classroom for 30 students and trying to keep track of who was doing what. And there were about 20 precincts jammed into one high school.

As for my beloved personal forms, according to one friend no one had a clue what to do with them in his precinct after they had filled them out. So some took them home and some dropped them in the trash can. Well, I suppose as long as the votes for each candidate were recorded on something the forms really were not crucial but they were supposed to be a record of at least attendence and identification of who was to be a delegate or alternate. Wonder when this part of the story will hit the newspaper.

Maybe we should go back to a regular primary where ballots are counted and sealed into steel boxes.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:19 PM

Fair enough, Nerd. I stand corrected, and you are correct to point out that I have lumped a fair amount of people under one heading. I would take exception with one of your terms. I am not sure what you consider a progressive. I consider myself a progressive Democrat, whose views are tempered by a fair amount of pragmatism based on experience. I want to make it clear that I DO NOT consider you a "juvenile whiner". Some of your comments to Frank I found to be intolerant and insulting, but as I said in that thread, the heat of politics does that sometime. I consider you to be an involved Democrat, with a lot of passion for your stances. I am worried when I see us cannibalizing one another. The point about Nader is not that his views didn't have relevance. It is that when the fight, within the system, was over, he chose to go independent and split the party. Among many other mistakes made by us during that campaign, that was one of the decisive ones.

It is my hope that others will do as you have said you will do. The enemy is not Kerry, it is Bush and co.

I apologize for the implication that you are anything other than a committed, caring Democrat.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:21 PM

Hmmm ! Sealed Ballot BOxes - Pray tell me how is it possible to interfere without it being obvious, and if it is so, pray also tell me is it possible to forge, alter, stuff enough papers to significantly alter the result ?

Unless of course, turn out in the primary was so low that the alteration of a handfull of ballots can significantly alter the result ?

With respect Nerd - The US of A and the World would be better served by you utilising your efforts to supporting a Democratic Candidate who can defoliate the Shrub rather than whinging !

Or in simple language get out on the street and doorway and organise the best "Democrate Vote" possible in November !

Charley - A Noble Effort It is a pleasure to correspond with one who takes an active role i politics, and is prepared to give up the time and get his paws dirty.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: GUEST,Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 05:15 PM

Mick,

you are making assumptions about me. I am not new to the party, but a lifelong Democrat. Granted, my life has not been THAT long, but I've been registered Dem for 20 years now. I think your analysis misses something very important. To you, the petulance of progressive democrats produced Nader's run. To progressive democrats, the petulance of the party establishment did. I agree with you, actually, but only because I knew Gore well enough to know he was more progressive than the image he tried to sell in order to "capture the center." Gore lost partly because he couldn't sell a soft-democrat message to enough of the base.

I also understand the progressive position, which is this: We now have a party that decides in advance who will win the nomination, a media that toes the line, and a style of mind control ("X is electable, y is not") that takes democracy away from people. A week before Iowa, when Dean had huge leads everywhere, the party establishment said "I think we need to wait and see how this turns out; it could be a long one." A week after Iowa, when Kerry had the lead, it was "everyone else should drop out of the race and line up behind Kerry." I haven't seen such a naked display of Party favoritism in all my time in the party.

Only in such a situation, I think, could a Kerry (who is, essentially, a liberal Bob Dole: eminently electable, experienced, war hero, yadda, yadda, except free of charisma) get a major party nomination after the REAL Bob Dole took his party down. I think the party getting its ass handed to it in 2000 and 2002 is largely the result of its relentless marginalization of more progressive democrats and its concentration on well-connected losers. Remember Gray Davis? He was a real Kerry type. He was, of course, electable--but people regretted it almost instantly. That's what I fear a Kerry nomination will be like.

You may think that progressive Democrats are irrelevant and therefore experienced politicos are right to ignore them.   My answer is your answer: remember Nader? That may not have done progressive Dems any good but it didn't do centrist Dems any good either. And it was the fault of both groups. To say that it's all the progressives' fault and that if they toed the line the party's centrist strategy would work misses the point: a lot of Democrats are tired of that strategy and tired of the politicians it produces. If the Party continues to put up Kerrys, those who dislike his reliance on quid pro quo favors to industry will continue to put up Naders. I have said I'll vote for Kerry, but I still predict that he will lose.

That's why I'm for Dean, not because I'm an -iac of any kind, but because Dean is an actual centrist who does not rely on all that poisoned special interest money. He also took different positions from Bush on the war, the Patriot Act, and No Child left Behind, which Kerry did not. So I think Dean actually can win. I think if Dean gets the nomination there will not be a challenge from the left, and we will have a fighting chance. I think Kerry's a dead end for the party. Once democrats find out more about him they'll snooze til election time, and we'll be lucky to wake them up then.

Having said all that, it's really not very relevant here. You brought it in from another thread that was probably best left to lie. Here I was pointing out something else: a lot of democrats like me who have voted but not paid close attention to primary results are realizing the extent to which THAT system is chaotic and needs fixing. This may be related to the other stuff, in that Dean is a candidate who in many people produced enough passion that they'll examine the system. But it's essentially a different set of issues.

What Charley says is a perfect case in point. There is no way to double-check who voted for whom? Does that sound like a good idea? Am I a juvenile whiner (surely the subtextual message of Mick's last post) to point out that it's not?

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: MAG
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:05 PM

That site sounds like pure kicking up dust. And we know who THEY usually are. (Remmeber Watergate??)

I 'spect the high turnout in Maine had a lot to do with the many very sensible Republicans up there looking for somebody they could vote for. It's happened before. When I worked for Harold in Chicago, every Republican with half a brain voted for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:33 PM

Nerd-

Actually, with regard to Portland, I'm not sure who Mary Beth Williams is. My newspaper reports that Dory Waxman was the Portland Caucus Convener and, yes, she admits today that she hasn't finished double checking her count of personally filled out forms. And Waxman did say the forms spend Monday and Tuesday "on my kitchen table with my big yellow dog guarding them."

By the way one thing that irritates me about the individual forms is that the participants did not have to sign them or indicate their preference. The only record we had of who voted for whom was our informal tally sheets at the caucus. The absentee forms did have to be signed and a preference stated for a candidate or for "uncommitted." So, other then confirming the total number of attendees and legitimate absentees (eliminating duplicates), there was no double check on who voted for whom. The system could obviously be improved in my opinion without a great deal of pain and angst.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Big Mick
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:50 PM

Nerd .... I wish that you could step outside yourself and see how this is coming off. You, and many of the Deaniacs, are proving the point that I made in the other thread. I had hoped the Dean movement would be different than its predecessor "new people in the process" movements. But it appears that is not going to be the case. It is why experience politico's rarely give you much shrift other than what it takes to beat you. Your man is on run, due largely to his own shortcomings, and a screwed up campaign plan. Also because the American electorate knows that he is not the right man to beat Bush. Those of us who have been in the trenches for many campaigns know that most folks who are 'iacs (fill in the candidates name)will disappear if their guy doesn't win. They don't have a clear vision based on principle, rather they have a frustration with how it is and just know they want it to change. Do you get the distinction? This is not a slam on you and the others, just an analysis. I accept your sincere desire for change, but it is based on frustration instead of analysis and common sense. If this were not the case you would be attacking GWB instead of Kerry, the process, etc. This phenomenon in the last election was one of the factors that saddled us with GWB. Remember Nader?

I hope I am wrong about this, but that is the way it looks to this old political hack. There is only one thing that is important this year and that is beating Bush. We can disagree about who that is, but if we truly care about effectuating change, we will keep our eye on the prize and quit cannibalizing ourselves.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:34 PM

First, if MBW was diddling the votes, she'd be stupid to admit to the possibility

True enough. But this is not outside the realms of possibility. Have you ever seen those "world's stupidest criminals" shows? I saw one where a would-be robber tried to break a bulletproof plexiglass window with a cinderblock; it bounced off, hit his head, and knocked him unconscious :-)

And I agree that DailyKos tends to attract angry comments. I was lured there by this post, which was emailed to me by a friend, so I don't know where it originated. I'm not a regular visitor.

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:26 PM

By the way, Nerd, just to be sure, I gave myself a real treat (oh, yeah!) and read through the whole damned thing, including the follow-ups. First, if MBW was diddling the votes, she'd be stupid to admit to the possibility. And second, just about everybody on that blog sounds like they're pissed off because things didn't go the way they wanted them to. Well . . . that's democracy in action.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:14 PM

Charley,

what I'm concerned about it the admission that:

"others had managed their caucuses 'in their own unique way' which will have to be reconciled with party rules."

It certainly seems as if MBW's caucus is one of these, since she admits that uncounted ballots were in her kitchen days later.

What happens if these caucuses can't be reconciled with party rules? Will those voters be disenfranchised? And what if they are reconciled even though the caucuses violated party rules at the time? Will some candidates suffer from those violations and others benefit?

If this happened in another country whose elections we were monitoring, we would not recognize the results. Can you imagine an African country telling Jimmy Carter "well, different parts of the country used entirely different rules, some of which were contradictory to the law, but we reconciled them after the fact."

Also your statement that

Could a Town Chair have altered the results at that point? Not easily. The Town Clerk/Voter Registrar was required to be at the caucus and check off each of the caucus attendees, so one could not add extra forms strikes me as optimistic.

You would not have to add extra forms, just substitute fake forms for real ones. In my experience, if you're creative enough you can do lots of stuff, provided you have the opportunity. This kind of irregularity provides the opportunity.

I'm not particularly bitter about any of this, by the way. While I don't much like Kerry, I'm prepared to vote for him when the time comes, and I don't dispute that he's winning the primaries and caucuses (though I do think it's possible his margins of victory are being tampered with).

I find it interesting that those directly involved in the caucuses accuse me of various emotions and motives for posting what are, to me, curious facets of our quirky process that suggest we need to come up with better systems. Please don't attribute to me bitterness or resentment or "the same flavor as the behavior of some of the more aggressive Deaniacs." I'm not being aggressive, bitter or resentful. I'm saying "This is how we pick a president? There's probably a better way."

I think maybe I'm hitting some nerves with folks who sacrificed hours of their lives to the electoral process this year. So Don and Charley, I'm not casting aspersions on you guys because you're running your local caucuses; on the contrary, volunteer labor like yours is necessary to the process as it exists today. But that process itself is a pretty chaotic one, it seems to me, with lots of opportunities for fraud.

I am, of course, also aware that this is a party caucus and not a general election. But the two parties have become so entrenched that winning in the primary/caucus system is a de facto prerequisite for the presidency.   In fact, it is this secondary fact that has made the primary/caucus system so problematic; if anyone who ran for the presidency without a major party nod actually had a chance, then the primaries and caucuses wouldn't really be issues. There would be more parties, and the boundaries between them would be more fluid. Even if internal party people wanted to spike the results and nominate a different candidate unfairly (which again is NOT what I am suggesting is happening today), it wouldn't be anyone's business but the rest of the party. And a candidate so wronged could move on to another party and run anyway.

Personally, I think the founding fathers who warned about the emergence of political parties harming our democracy were right. But then, they were right about so much...

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:10 PM

Thanks, Charlie. Apparently as in Maine, here in Washington the votes were not officially recorded until some time after the caucuses, but each caucus knew the results immediately. Otherwise, how else could we have elected our delegates on the spot? And everyone went home that afternoon knowing what the results were. Had there been any significant discrepancies (enought to alter the number of delegates), it would have been noticed immediately by everybody who had been there. My boy came in third, but in no way can I rationally complaint about the process.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:39 AM

Nerd-

I believe you've way off-base with regard to how caucus voting and final reports are done in Maine. The initial caucus results were phoned in to Democratic Party headquarters in Augusta by town chairs or their surrogates and then followed up with a set of forms filled out by each participant and a formal summary.

As of this morning's newspapers, some 88% of the hard copy municipal reports had been received in Augusta. The Portland report was still outstanding although an oral report had been phoned in Sunday.

It is not unusual for Town Democratic Chairs to take all the caucus forms home to summarize, away from the confusion of the caucus itself. I certainly did that and delivered the report to Augusta on Monday. Could a Town Chair have altered the results at that point? Not easily. The Town Clerk/Voter Registrar was required to be at the caucus and check off each of the caucus attendees, so one could not add extra forms.

However, there was a possibility for "double counting" either by mistake or deliberate action with regard to "absentee ballots." We received a set of absentee ballots from Democratic Headquarters before the caucus and then had to check if any of the "absentees" were actually present. In our case, 3 out of 10 were present. If a caucus coordinator had made a mistake and double counted someone, there is a possibility that this mistake would be noted by Headquarters when they double checked all the forms submitted. But it's also possible that the Headquarter's staff would miss the mistake. However, I doubt if this kind of mistake would alter the relative ranking of the major candidates in Maine's case which at this point are reported to be Kerry 44%, Dean 28% and Kucinich 16%.

That said, Democratic Party officials freely acknowledge that some caucuses were overwhelmed by the turnout and their number did not "add up" while others had managed their caucuses "in their own unique way" which will have to be reconciled with party rules, ultimately by a vote at the Party State Convention in May.

At this point it's probably more productive to focus on Bush or if you're really resentful or bitter about the outcome of this process then drop out. In my opinion Dean's Campaign self-destructed in Iowa and although I ended up voted for him in last Sunday's Caucus I expect to be working full-time for Kerry.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:30 AM

To clarify, I meant examples of opportunities, not necessarily of fraud!

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 01:20 AM

Don,

This stuff came from this woman's own posts. I didn't make this up.   I've included the URLs.

Votes and ballot-boxes are being carried off-site and stored in the homes of political partisans. This has happened in both Washington and Maine. Are People being disenfranchised? I don't know, but it sure looks fishy!

BTW, in Maine it manifestly does NOT work as you have described it, or MBW's posts would not exist. Obviously, it HAS taken several days for her to get these ballots counted.

Like you, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Amy Hagopian in Washington and Mary Beth Williams in Maine may be perfectly honest people and they may put in results honestly.

What I AM saying is that we run our elections kind of like a banana republic, and that people who thought hanging chads and butterfly ballots were the weak link in an otherwise strong chain are very wrong.

There are ample opportunities for election fraud, and these were two examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 11:26 PM

Nerd, I'm not accusing you of anything, but I'm beginning to wonder about some of the stuff you're posting to these caucus report threads. It has the same flavor as the behavior of some of the more aggressive Deaniacs I observed around me while attending my precinct caucus in Seattle; apparently the principle they are operating on is "if it's anybody but Dean, trash him!" Pretty damned short-sighted, I'd say. And it left a bad taste in some people's mouths, including some of the other Deaniacs. It's not helping Dean.

I don't know how they run their caucuses in Maine (perhaps Charlie Noble can enlighten us), but where I was, by the time the various caucuses were finished, everybody knew right away exactly how many votes there were for each candidate. The voting was all done in plain sight of everyone. The people in my precinct caucus—fifty-seven of us—turned in our ballots and stood around watching the two people who counted them. And this included a couple of recounts just to be sure. Supporters of all the candidates looked on. There was no way anybody could have cobble the votes. Then each candidate's supporters gathered in a group and elected their delegates right there. Everybody, even those whose candidates came in down the line, found nothing in the procedure to complain about. If anybody had a box of ballots in their kitchen, they could hardly have delayed anything because the results were already in and recorded. All a box of ballots would be is a souvenir. And all of the other caucuses that met a Lowell School did it the same way my precinct did. Hanky-panky was simply not possible.

The delegates will go to the 43rd District convention where the procedure will be repeated to select the delegates to the State Convention, and then to the National Democratic Convention where the candidate will be nominated.

Kerry may not be the ideal candidate. Hell, Dean, as far as I'm concerned, is not the ideal candidate. The one that I consider nearest to reflecting my position is running a consistent third in both Washington and Maine, but whoever emerges at the Democratic Convention, he'll be preferable to another four years than Bush.

I wonder about motives here. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: Shenanigans in Maine?
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 04:43 PM

Posted to several political blogs is this record that a box full of uncounted Maine ballots is sitting in the kitchen of a woman who has sworn to oppose Dean with every breath. The evidence is blog posts from the woman herself. To get to the original posts, cut and paste the "tinyurl" urls into your browser's address window.


The caucus convener for Portland was a woman by the name of Mary Beth Williams, who posts on a blog called "Wampum" under the alias MB or MBW. She also, apparently, posts on DailyKos and elsewhere as well. She has been updating the situation concerning the slow vote count, and in the midst of it has said some rather odd things.

She does give a very compelling description of how overwhelmed they were by the enormous turnout, which has made things difficult. And she is quite peeved at those of us who are anxious to find out how the candidates actually did, implying that it is none of our business. (See her comments at http://tinyurl.com/3ykuu).

The disturbing part comes when she mentions, not once but twice that "The ballots are currently in a sealed box in my kitchen, waiting to be counted later today or tomorrow in a public place" (http://tinyurl.com/39cn5) and "The ballots are still in my kitchen, and they aren't going anywhere at least for a day" (http://tinyurl.com/28lc9).

Does anyone find it more than a bit strange that the ballots are sitting on someone's kitchen table? If that isn't odd enough, you should consider that Mary Beth Williams is adamantly anti-Dean because of a dispute that arose over a proposed Indian Casino in Vermont while he was governor. In fact, she vowed just last month that she will "oppose him with every breath I have." (http://tinyurl.com/2pd93)

Does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?

This is why the rest of the world does not take American self-righteousness about democracy very seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Feb 04 - 12:44 AM

Hillary or not, whoever the Dem is has my vote!

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:57 AM

Thanks, Charley!

Subject: RE: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 10:10 AM

I believe people are falling behind Kerry because they believe ge is the only candidate who can beat the incumbent bush. Frankly, I will vote for any Democrat who does not have Hillary as a
vice-presidential running mate.

Exciting times. This election will be very interesting.

And Bush's backstepping with "Saddam had the ability to MANUFACTURE weapons of mass destruction and that's why we took him out" isn't going to help him.

Subject: BS: Record DEM Caucus Turnout in Maine
From: Charley Noble
Date: 09 Feb 04 - 09:31 AM

Democratic Party officials are still tallying the Sunday caucus results but are saying that the overall turnout was a record. With 50% of the municipalities tallied including most of the major ones Kerry won 45%, Dean 26 %, Kucinich 15%, Edwards 9%, Clark 4% and Sharpton 1%. Maine gets a total of 35 delegates, 24 of whom are elected via the caucus process; the actual caucus delegates are elected at the State Conention May 21-23 in Portland.

Kucinich made his best showing so far in a state primary race. Dean supporters were dominant in many of the smaller town caucuses but Kerry support was widespread.

In general support for particular candidates is not "hardened" at least as witnessed in the caucus I coordinated, with individuals shifting their vote at the last minute. In our town of Richmond, 3500 residents, 35 voters showed up to vote for 8 delegates; Dean took 4, Kerry took 2, and Kucinich took 2. I'm convinced that most of these people will work actively in the campaign to defeat Bush regardless (even irregardless) of the ultimate Democratic candidate confirmed.

Well, now to finish filling out all the paper work and filling it at Party Headquarters.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble
Richmond Democratic Town Chair