Voting concerns for the upcoming election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've never seen a reputable, non-partisan source that claims this. Do you have one?

Given the way you define non-partisan (i.e., giving equal weight to the myth of voter fraud and the documented examples of massive and systematic disenfranchisement), I'd hazard not.

That's downright rude, Cerin, not to mention a grossly inaccurate charactertization of what I have said. In any event, what I mean by "non-partisan" is source that it is not committed to promoting one side or the other. dailykos, for instance, would not qualify. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, for instance, would.

[Primula Baggins]

Rolling Stone wouldn't qualify, I assume.

Was the 2004 Election Stolen? (an article from 2006)

[Cerin]

That's downright rude, Cerin, not to mention a grossly inaccurate charactertization of what I have said.

I didn't mean to be rude, Voronwë. That seemed to me to be an accurate representation of your stance, based on the comments you've made and admonished against in this thread. I'm sorry to have gotten it wrong.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I made a long reply to you, Cerin, which the messageboard gods decided in their infinite wisdom to disappear into the ether. I am going to take that as a sign that I should not engage further on the issue.

Prim, no I don't consider Rolling Stone to be "non-partisan." That doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that they have an agenda.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

If you cast a provisional ballot because your name has been purged from a list, is there any way of knowing if your vote has actually been counted or not? How can someone believe they have voted and in actual fact it has just been chucked away? Have there been analyses of discarded provisional ballots? What proportion were fraudulent, genuine, merely clerically inaccurate; what were the spread of party affilliations?

[Whistler]

Whatever happens, all signs (in Louisiana, at least) are that turnout will be huge.

Last Saturday I voted early, taking along my mother. Because of her age and health, an officer present escorted her (and me!) to the front of the line. We were out in about fifteen minutes.

Otherwise we would have had to wait for about five hours.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holy cow! Five hours? And that's several weeks before the election? What is it going to be like on election day itself? That is really concerning (not from a partisan point of view, but simply from the point of view of wanting the election to go smoothly so that everyone who wants to vote can do so).

[superwizard]

Holy cow! Five hours? And that's several weeks before the election? What is it going to be like on election day itself? That is really concerning (not from a partisan point of view, but simply from the point of view of wanting the election to go smoothly so that everyone who wants to vote can do so).

That was actually what I was pondering the other day as well. On campus we'll only have one polling location (shockingly down from 3 2 years ago) and I mean it took me over an hour to vote during the primary I shudder to think how long it'll take to vote on election day! I know it takes quite some time to logistically set up but wasn't there some way to predict this massive turnout and to prepare for it? I mean it should have been quite clear at least by the end of the primaries that attendance will be significantly higher than usual this election cycle...

[Cerin]

I heard it pointed out today that the number of polling places for early voting is much fewer than on election day, so a wait for early voting doesn't necessarily indicate what waits will be on election day.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, that is certainly true, Cerin. There are only two here in Santa Cruz County for early voting, compared to dozens for election day. I hadn't really thought that through. But the stark differences from place to place sure do strike me as being unfair. I voted today, and I didn't have to wait more than 15 minutes.

[Túrin Turambar]

Is there any chance this discussion could be moved to the other thread?

[Dave_LF]

Dirty tricks in Miami, or just confusion?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politic ... 40834.html

Three Hialeah voters say they had an unusual visitor at their homes last week: a man who called himself Juan, offering to help them fill out their absentee ballots and deliver them to the elections office.

The voters, all supporters of Democratic congressional candidate Raul Martinez, said they gave their ballots to the man after he told them he worked for Martinez. But the Martinez campaign said he doesn't work for them.

Juan ''told me not to worry, that they normally collected all the ballots and waited until they had a stack big enough to hand-deliver to the elections department,'' said voter Jesus Hernandez, 73. 'He said, `Don't worry. This is not going to pass through the mail to get lost.' ''

Hernandez said he worries his ballot was stolen or destroyed. He and two other voters told The Miami Herald that the man was dispatched by a woman caller who also said she worked for Martinez. But the phone number cited by the voters traces back to a consultant working for Martinez's rival, Republican congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.
...
But the mystery only deepened after one complaining voter's ballot arrived at the elections office on Thursday, apparently unmolested.

[N.E. Brigand]

For that matter, my understanding is that once the votes were actually counted in Florida in 2000, it showed that Gore still would have fell short if the recount had been allowed to go forward. That was the tragedy of the overtly partisan SCOTUS decision: it was unnecessary from their own partisan point of view.

From < wikipedia >:

Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

[River]

Oh the irony...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For that matter, my understanding is that once the votes were actually counted in Florida in 2000, it showed that Gore still would have fell short if the recount had been allowed to go forward. That was the tragedy of the overtly partisan SCOTUS decision: it was unnecessary from their own partisan point of view.

From < wikipedia >:

Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won.

What is odd is that that statement doesn't seem to follow from what comes before it. Here's the full statement about the recount study:

Ultimately, the Media Consortium hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago [6] to examine 175,010 ballots that were discounted; these ballots contained under-votes (votes with no choice made for president) and over-votes (votes made with more than one choice marked). Their goal was not to deduce who actually won the election but to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used for the voting process.

In the aftermath of the election, the first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. Counting only "undervotes" (when the vote is not detected by machine), and not considering "overvotes" (when a ballot ends up with more than one indication of a vote, for example both a punch-out and hand-written name, even if both indicating the same candidate)[36] Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios. If overvotes where the intent of the voter was clear were counted, using any consistent standard for 'clear intent of the voter', Bush would have won. This was not requested by either side at the time; the independent recount therefore led to a greater awareness of the issue of 'overvotes'.

Under the recount rules initially requested by Gore, Bush would have won, and under the rules requested by Bush, Gore would have won

The last statement seems tacked on as a non sequitur, since the only scenarios described have Bush as the winner.

[The Watcher]

Well, this is all water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. I know my state was accused of some voting fraud back in 2004, but it turned out to be minimal, and hardly anything that would affect the overall results. It was mainly some college voters taking advantage of voting from their parent's home addresses and then voting again on election day as college kids in that district. I think the state has (wisely) made this nearly impossible to do, since, unless you are preregistered, you CAN vote in person unregistered on election day, but need ample ID and proof of current address in able to do so.

I am not overly worried about fraud issues come six days from now, although I am sure that many instances will be claimed, especially in some of the more "touchy" parts of the country. In any case, I do not think it will be close enough given the overall electoral votes to give McCAin a chance at an appeal, I am not trying to sound cocky, but I do think this is going to be an Obama/Democrat win, I cannot even see McCain coming close enough to matter, even if a state or two does get contested.

[Alatar]

Out of curiosity, if the voting results are widely at variance with exit polls again in November, what will be done? Does the US need NATO to step in and ensure a fair election is being held? That would be a major embarassment for the supposed champions of democracy, but how else can you ensure that those in power don't "have their thumb on the scale" so to speak.

[Primula Baggins]

I would hope it wouldn't happen. In any case the presidency is something of a hot potato; I can imagine that some Republicans envision a scenario where Obama doesn't please the country (because nobody could have), and the Republicans step back into power in 2012.

Exit polls are going to be tricky. I don't know how the networks will handle them. Early voting is big this year and lopsided in many places for Obama—which means exit polls in a state might indicate a majority for McCain on Election Day, in a state Obama still wins.

[Inanna]

The author of this book: How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative was on Bill Maher. He outlined specific, simple strategies that HE claims Republicans have used over the last few decades to slightly tilt the voting.

In other news, VA democrats have received a flyer telling them that voting is on Nov. 5th. Frankly, if anybody believes that - you are too dumb to be allowed to vote. As Samuel Vimes would put it.

[Cerin]

Frankly, if anybody believes that - you are too dumb to be allowed to vote. As Samuel Vimes would put it.

I don't think people who believe it are dumb as much as unsuspecting and naive. The flier is said to look very official, with the Board of Elections insignia.