Rigged election process

[46zilzal]

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A99749-2001May30
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palast
I am sure it will happen again, just where is the question.

[Marshall Bennett]

Already worried about losing ? Already blaming someone for losing ? Talk about a real lack of confidence !! :D

[46zilzal]

Already worried about losing ? Already blaming someone for losing ? Talk about a real lack of confidence.


Being aware of the past mechanisms, particularly the machine frauds is just being prepared.

Doesn't effect me. Passing this time.

[Indulto]

Citizens of all parties should be concerned about the lack of a paper trail and the resulting potential for fraud. When Reps mock Dems for voicing those concerns, it suggests one of two things to me: 1) pre-election rhetoric discrediting that possibility is designed to pave the path for post-election refuting of such action already planned, or 2) even Reps realize how less prone to such crime the Dems are.

[JustRalph]

Citizens of all parties should be concerned about the lack of a paper trail and the resulting potential for fraud. When Reps mock Dems for voicing those concerns, it suggests one of two things to me: 1) pre-election rhetoric discrediting that possibility is designed to pave the path for post-election refuting of such action already planned, or 2) even Reps realize how less prone to such crime the Dems are.

Nope, I think you got it wrong there. When a party that hands out cartons of cigarettes for votes tries to lecture anybody on "electioneering" and election fraud they don't have much credibility. When a party that allows 8k dead people to vote in Chicago, or attempts to register 15k convicted felons in prison in Florida............Repubs tend to treat them like the boy who cried wolf once too often.

The same party that thinks that requiring and I.D. card to vote is discrimination, but doesn't mind it to buy a glass of wine or buy a pack of cigarettes, yep, things start to sound somewhat hollow.

[Indulto]

Nope, I think you got it wrong there. When a party that hands out cartons of cigarettes for votes tries to lecture anybody on "electioneering" and election fraud they don't have much credibility. When a party that allows 8k dead people to vote in Chicago, or attempts to register 15k convicted felons in prison in Florida............Repubs tend to treat them like the boy who cried wolf once too often.

The same party that thinks that requiring and I.D. card to vote is discrimination, but doesn't mind it to buy a glass of wine or buy a pack of cigarettes, yep, things start to sound somewhat hollow.As I think fraud prevention is in the interest of both parties, I support using photo IDs, and would send out out bi-partisan worker pairs to create voter IDs for Srs. and the handicapped with supporting documentation. Both visitors should sign the ID.

I did say both parties need to be on their guard, but for every Dem incident you allege, I have no doubt the Dems have more than one documented Rep counterexample to offset it.

[46zilzal]

Paper and pen: make an "X," That's it: no fraud, no confusion.

[PaceAdvantage]

Paper and pen: make an "X," That's it: no fraud, no confusion.Perhaps you can suggest this at your next Canadian elections board meeting.

[46zilzal]

Perhaps you can suggest this at your next Canadian elections board meeting.
That is already the way it is done here.

[lsbets]

Paper and pen: make an "X," That's it: no fraud, no confusion.

You would spell it wrong.

[Tom]

Capitals of lower case?

Hillary would change her name to Hillary X. :lol:

[rastajenk]

There's certainly more to it than that. Much more.

Following the Florida debacle, I began working the polls in 2002, and became a presiding precinct official in '04. We still used punch cards then, then changed to a pen-and-paper optical scan system in '06. Our system currently counts the ballot the moment the voter finishes it and inserts it into the scanner. If there is an undervote or overvote, the scanner beeps and gives the voter the opportunity to correct the mistake. So far so good, right?

Our Democratic Sec of State has proposed sweeping changes to our voting systems in Ohio, which were just changes at great expense a couple years ago. And one of the most egregiously stupid changes is her proposal that ballots be counted at central locations, not at the precinct level. Why? What does that do to voter confidence? When they finish marking their ballots and hand them to me, do I just say, "Trust me, it will get counted?" Why should they trust me? How does that address the overvote/undervote situation? Why should they trust anybody in a central counting location? Isn't that how ballots mysteriously come up missing, or mysteriously get "found" during a recount?

The whole thing with the Florida dimpled chad bullshit was that the Dems tried to cheat, it didn't work, then tried to project onto the Republicans the cheating charge. Do you know how you get dimpled chads? By sticking four or five ballots into the slot at one time. How do you do that? Certainly not by giving one ballot to each voter when he or she identifies himself and signs the signature book.

So no, it's not as simple as "mark an X, no fraud, no confusion." There are always attempts to game the system, and the Dems have a much longer history of it than Republicans. I encourage everyone to work the polls at least once. It's a civic duty easily performed, and it's very educational.

[ddog]

There's certainly more to it than that. Much more.

Following the Florida debacle, I began working the polls in 2002, and became a presiding precinct official in '04. We still used punch cards then, then changed to a pen-and-paper optical scan system in '06. Our system currently counts the ballot the moment the voter finishes it and inserts it into the scanner. If there is an undervote or overvote, the scanner beeps and gives the voter the opportunity to correct the mistake. So far so good, right?

Our Democratic Sec of State has proposed sweeping changes to our voting systems in Ohio, which were just changes at great expense a couple years ago. And one of the most egregiously stupid changes is her proposal that ballots be counted at central locations, not at the precinct level. Why? What does that do to voter confidence? When they finish marking their ballots and hand them to me, do I just say, "Trust me, it will get counted?" Why should they trust me? How does that address the overvote/undervote situation? Why should they trust anybody in a central counting location? Isn't that how ballots mysteriously come up missing, or mysteriously get "found" during a recount?

The whole thing with the Florida dimpled chad bullshit was that the Dems tried to cheat, it didn't work, then tried to project onto the Republicans the cheating charge. Do you know how you get dimpled chads? By sticking four or five ballots into the slot at one time. How do you do that? Certainly not by giving one ballot to each voter when he or she identifies himself and signs the signature book.

So no, it's not as simple as "mark an X, no fraud, no confusion." There are always attempts to game the system, and the Dems have a much longer history of it than Republicans. I encourage everyone to work the polls at least once. It's a civic duty easily performed, and it's very educational.

good post, a little first-hand experience is good to see.

If I could ask, What were/are her reasons given for the central counting?
Is everyone using the same machines now?

thx