BS: Election counts

11 Sep 08 - 06:08 AM (#2437138)
Subject: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

One has to wonder....


In the (just past) Washington DC Primary election ( the only one that counts, with more than 90% of the voters and the entire local government Democrats), the counts were, shall we say, a little off?

In one ward there were 9,000 votes cast, 1500 of which were write-ins.

Problem is that only 5,000 voters voted.



Was this a practice session for the Obama victory celebration?

---

11 Sep 08 - 06:09 AM (#2437139)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

note- information from WTOP radio reports during drives in to work.

---

11 Sep 08 - 06:17 AM (#2437143)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

from another report on the same election ( 2006)

"


"If 36% of Statehood Green votes and 40% of Republican votes in a primary election are lost, for whatever reason, then we have reason to question the integrity of the D.C. election system," said Anne Anderson, Ward 5 resident and Statehood Green Party member. "We should also worry about the accuracy of the September 12 Democratic Party primary. If the Statehood Green and Republican primaries are unreliable, that's bad enough. If Statehood Green and Republican voters are being given Democratic ballots and are voting in the Democratic primary, it means that Democratic primary results are also skewed."



Mr. Blair only investigated the Statehood Green and Republican primary results, and only did so in Ward 5, because there were too many Democratic votes for one individual to investigate. DC Statehood Green Party members compared the lost votes to a 'canary in a coal mine,' expressing concern that if the outcome is unreliable for Ward 5 Statehood Green and Republican primaries, similar problems may also exist in other wards and elections.



"We demand that DCBOEE fully investigate the September 12 primary, and assure us that Statehood Green and Republican votes be given the same treatment as Democratic votes," said Ms. Anderson. "The fact that a majority of D.C. voters are registered Democrat and that Democrats usually win elections is irrelevant. All voters deserve to have their votes counted accurately, regardless of party affiliation.""

---

11 Sep 08 - 07:52 AM (#2437203)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

To clarify:

"Washington DC Primary election ( the only one that counts,"

I was saying the the DC general election does not count, as the primary decides who the Democrat is, and they win.


I was NOT trying to say that only the DC election counts!

---

11 Sep 08 - 11:16 AM (#2437395)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Ebbie

"In one ward there were 9,000 votes cast, 1500 of which were write-ins.

Problem is that only 5,000 voters voted." bb

I don't understand. Do you mean there are only 5,000 voters registered in that ward, and yet 9,000 voters came into the precincts? (That, in itself, might not indicate a problem; at least in Alaska one can vote a 'questioned' ballot outside one's own precinct. For whatever reason, it might be that it was more convenient to vote there that day- I frequently do that; when I am working an election outside my own precinct I vote where I am working.)

Otherwise I don't understand. Was there a controversial issue that encouraged write-in votes?

Or are you saying that there were 'repeat' votes? That a voter- in multiple numbers - voted and then went back repeated times and got another ballot?

That could not legally happen in Alaska. Each voter signs in and then is issued a ballot. Were that voter to reappear, there would be no place for them to sign in.

If/When a system breaks down into outright lawlessness it could be done, with the connivance of the election workers.

How about more informatin?

---

11 Sep 08 - 11:20 AM (#2437400)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Amos

Gee, Bruce. As I recall (please correct me if I am wrong) the bizarre voting irregularities of FLorida and Ohio didn't trouble you much. Why worry about a little pocket region like the District of Columbia? Hell, they ain't even a State! ;>)

A

---

11 Sep 08 - 11:25 AM (#2437406)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: artbrooks

From NBC(channel)4.com: WASHINGTON -- The city's interim attorney general will look into why an unusually high number of write-in votes were briefly tallied in Tuesday's primary, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty said.

In a statement Wednesday, elections board spokesman Daniel Murphy attributed the problem to a defective cartridge from a ballot machine that duplicated vote totals in multiple races. The error was quickly caught and the results revised, he said.

The board is investigating how the error occurred.

Huuummm - wonder who makes that machine, and who is practicing for what?

---

11 Sep 08 - 11:28 AM (#2437409)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: pdq

In 2000, one precinct in St. Louis had a voter turnout of 300%. It was an organised fraud campaign where hundreds of Democrat operatives went to to one polling place after another.

Since they were not registered at more than one place, they were giveg "provisional ballots" and voted.

When the doors closed, the precinct workers simply threw the "provisional ballots" on the same counting machines as the real ones.

BTW, two or three Democrat organisers of this fraud were convicted and sentenced to federal prison, but I believe none actually did any time.

---

11 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM (#2437421)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: katlaughing

And you are bitching because one GOP candidate won out over another GOP candidate which you have somehow twisted into being the fault of the Democrats?

Mara will face at least two candidates from the the Independent party in the November General Election. Schwartz tells WTOP she will not run as write-in candidate, and she won't ask for a recall.

"That would be poor sportsmanship," Schwartz says.

The Republican party of the District, which had vigorously backed Schwartz and painted Mara as unqualified, issued a statement late Tuesday night calling Mara, "The new face of the Republican party in D.C."

Sounds to me as though the Republicans are okay with it.

---

11 Sep 08 - 03:00 PM (#2437585)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: dick greenhaus

Political cheating is not, and has not been, the sole property of any one party. If the Republicans have been (recently) tarred with it, it's possibly because they've been more successful, at least on a national basis. The technology for fair and honest balloting is pretty simple--a writing implement and a piece of paper can suffice, as long as it's used under the watchful eyes of representatives of the competing factions.

---

11 Sep 08 - 08:17 PM (#2437872)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

Ebbie,

5000 people came in and voted. The tally was 9000 votes.


Simple.

---

11 Sep 08 - 09:34 PM (#2437913)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: artbrooks

The voting machine was busted.

Simple

---

12 Sep 08 - 09:43 AM (#2438306)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Amos

Newsweek discusses GOP efforts to deny voting rights.

---

13 Sep 08 - 07:54 AM (#2439101)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

OK, the GOP is evil, and the Democrats are always right. Why bother having an election at all, since the results are required to be in favor of the Dems, regardless of what they do at the polls?

(sarcasm)




When I see equal interest in the voting irregularities in the areas controlled by Dems, I will acknowledge that BOTH sides are trying ( to the limits of the law, and in cases ON BOTH SIDES beyond that limit) to insure that

1. voters they think will support them can vote
2. voters they think will not support them will not vote.


I have no problem with taking a hard look at voting problems IN ALL AREAS- NOT just where the GOP gets the advantage. As long as "miscounts" occur, they are wrong- EVEN when the result is what you WANT it to be.


I look at MD, with four Democrat-controlled counties ( out of 20 some) deciding the election ( larger populations), and have to wonder about the actual votes in any state: Given technology, and the control of election hardware by one party, is it any wonder that incumbent (parties) always seem to have the advantage?


When the Chicago Dem Machine delivers more votes than there are voters, how many here will ask that those votes be taken away from Obama? Or even checked to see who the voters that did vote actually voted for?

---

13 Sep 08 - 08:00 AM (#2439103)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

"katlaughing - PM
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM

And you are bitching because one GOP candidate won out over another GOP candidate which you have somehow twisted into being the fault of the Democrats?"


NO. I am bitching that there were major voting irregularities in this AND past elections, which lead me to think that the count in DC will reflect more the decisions of the local Dem. goverment than the votes of the population. But since it is in favor of the Democratic candidates, I guess it is ok.

---

13 Sep 08 - 08:23 AM (#2439109)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Bobert

Ahhhhhh, yeah.... The folks in D.C. looked at Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 and inspite of 90% of the voters as registered Democrats figured that they had better be sure that D.C.'s, what 2 electorial votes, go to Obama...

Man, that's purdy scarey when even the people in D.C. think they are going to have to out-cheat the cheaters in order for Obama to carry D.C....

B~

---

13 Sep 08 - 08:27 AM (#2439110)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

" artbrooks - PM
Date: 11 Sep 08 - 11:25 AM

....
Huuummm - wonder who makes that machine, and who is practicing for what?"


Or rather, who controls that machine, and who is practicing for what- THAT is my point. When Obama gets more votes from DC than there are voters, I hope that even Bobert will realize that the "popular" vote count is more a fiction of the local voting boards than a representation of the will of the people.

Of course, as long as Obama wins, I doubt if many here will complain. Anything goes, as long as the "right" person wins.

---

13 Sep 08 - 10:26 AM (#2439161)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: curmudgeon

Never ascribe to malice that which is more easily explained by   stupidity,

---

13 Sep 08 - 10:41 AM (#2439171)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Ebbie

"NO. I am bitching that there were major voting irregularities in this AND past elections, which lead me to think that the count in DC will reflect more the decisions of the local Dem. goverment than the votes of the population. But since it is in favor of the Democratic candidates, I guess it is ok." bb

Ye gods. Where were you in the last election(s). Does your above statement explain to your satisfaction that the current government got in office by using such tactics? And you're OK with that, right?

---

13 Sep 08 - 10:48 AM (#2439174)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Bobert

Well, Eb... I've never heard bb complain about the Dems getting rooked by Diebold in Ohio in '04 or the Jeb and Kate Show in Florida in 2000... Or even, for that matter, the Supreme Screw Up that followed the attempted recount in Florida???

Go figure???

B~

---

18 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM (#2444195)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

refresh

---

18 Sep 08 - 04:31 PM (#2444363)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Richard Bridge

The verbal form is "practising". The noun is "practice".

---

18 Sep 08 - 04:59 PM (#2444394)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

Looks like we need to clean up the voting system. If it's broken, anyone can cheat, even the people on the other side. If we're going to complain about voting irregularities, we need to complain about all voting irregularities (and unfair practices) or we aren't going to solve any problems. If we don't fix the system, the people who will win elections will always be the ones who do a better job of cheating than the other guys.

---

18 Sep 08 - 05:03 PM (#2444401)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

I would be interested to know what measures the thread originator would like to see implemented to clean up irregularities that benefit Democrats, and whether or not that person would be willing to have those same measures also apply to Republicans everywhere in the country.

---

18 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM (#2444413)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

ALL irregularities should be corrected.

Not just the ones that give results you disagree with, as most here ( in past threads) have advocated.

---

19 Sep 08 - 02:15 AM (#2444728)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

Interesting paper on the subject of voter fraud and election fraud...

http://truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

---

19 Sep 08 - 11:07 AM (#2445062)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

Paper deals well with voters falsely voting, but does not address the loss of valid votes by eligible voters- which is what Amos refers to in 2004 and 2000, and I refer to in 2006 and now.

But an excellent study.

Thanks, Carol.

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:18 AM (#2455565)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

D.C.'s Primary Mystery
With an election looming, the city's inability to explain an electronic voting problem is not reassuring.

Thursday, October 2, 2008; Page A22

IT WAS BAD enough that thousands of phantom votes cast a cloud over the D.C. primary on Sept. 9. Even more troubling is that three weeks later, District election officials still have no clue as to what went wrong. The Board of Elections and Ethics concluded its investigation into the breakdown with the finding, released yesterday, that a cartridge "inexplicably" added randomly generated numbers to vote totals. The disappointing report, as D.C. Council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) observed to The Post's Nikita Stewart, "offered nothing insightful or new or particularly helpful in what happened." That's scary, considering that the board not only certified the results of the Sept. 9 primary but also will be in charge of balloting in the Nov. 4 general election. Election officials initially blamed the problem on a defective computer memory cartridge that supposedly caused extra votes to be counted. But the firm that provides the city with its election equipment did its own testing and said nothing was wrong with either the hardware or software. It suggested that worker error or static electricity or other factors might be to blame.

It is clear that the board compounded the troubles of primary night by not arranging for an independent review by technical experts. Three of the four members conducting the investigation are employed by the board, so in effect the agency ended up investigating its own mistakes. Little wonder there wasn't a more definitive outcome, although the board does get credit for its admission that staff members acted too hastily in reading computer memory cartridges and then in releasing them.


The best hope now for solving the mystery lies with Ms. Cheh, who is heading a special council committee probing the problems of primary night and other voting issues. Her first hearing is set for tomorrow, and witnesses will include board members as well as representatives of Sequoia Voting Systems. Ms. Cheh also was right to look ahead to next month's general election, lining up the services of a law firm known for its work on voting issues to help ensure that the District will be ready when the polls open.

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:26 AM (#2455576)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

I've heard a few pundits express the opinion that the results of the upcoming presidential election will not be known for weeks after the day of the election (regardless of who gets elected). They're saying that the results will be challenged and probably end up in court.

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:45 AM (#2455601)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: Amos

A landslide for Obama would probably not have to go through that.


A

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:50 AM (#2455611)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

And the counts will be skewed by whatever party has control of the local election boards. I do not trust that the NUMBER of votes that either side really gets will be accurately reported for Washington, DC. OR Prince Georges County, MD. Or Baltimore city, MD. etc.

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM (#2455614)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

Why only the concern about those areas? There's plenty of Republican leaning areas with the same kinds of problems. Or is the concern only for whether or not there is cheating being done by Democrats?

---

02 Oct 08 - 11:59 AM (#2455619)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: beardedbruce

No, *** I *** have stated that election fraud is wrong regardless of who benefits. But I am NOT ** IN ** any other area: I have not even heard rumors on the most liberal sites about a 40% vote loss in any Republican precinct, as I have about DC....38% of the Green Party vote, and 40% of the Republican vote LOST by the election board. (2006 election)

And now an OVERCOUNT of 9000 with only 5000 votes cast???

---

02 Oct 08 - 12:02 PM (#2455625)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: CarolC

It's definitely a problem in other areas, both Republican and Democrat.

---

02 Oct 08 - 12:32 PM (#2455647)
Subject: RE: BS: Election counts
From: PoppaGator

Thanks to the obsolete Electoral College, recounts won't be requested in most states, no matter how close the nationwide popular vote might be.

Well more than half of the fifty states are already "known" to be firmly held by one side or the other; the national candidates are really only campaigning seriously (i.e., spending serious money) in about eleven "battleground" states. In the end, it is very unlikely that more than one or two of those states will have an outcome close enough to dispute ~ and the final decision about ththe outcome in one or stwo states could decide the election one way or the other.

If there is a really large turnout of first-time voters, an Obama landslide might well be possible. Based upon the current polling, which concentrates on the population of citizens known to vote regularly, the race is still close enough that, in another month, it could go either way.

Last election, the final decision on a very close race in one state, Ohio, determined the winner. Election before that, it was Florida. If large numbers of previously non-voting young people and black people do not come out of the woodwork to give Obama a clearcut victory, we might well see a recount or two (along with the accompanying skullduggery) in either or both of those same two states, or maybe Michigan and/or Pennsylvania as well.

---