|
Grex > Agora35 > #124: Win the electoral college but lose the popular vote? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 409 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 301 of 409:
| 
Dec 5 04:50 UTC 2000 |
Thanks Aaron. That's a very frightening story.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 302 of 409:
|
Dec 5 16:47 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, it's "interesting" and all. And if some elections officials violated
some statutes re: ballot *applications*, they'll have to answer for it. But
there is no notion or proof of fraud or tampering with the actual *ballots*.
So don't look for any "remedy" whereby properly filled out, returned, and
counted ballots are thrown out.
|
aaron
|
|
response 303 of 409:
|
Dec 5 16:52 UTC 2000 |
Why not? The reason for the strict language of the statute is that there
was prior fraud in the application process which required the exclusion of
all absentee ballots from a particular county's election result.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 304 of 409:
|
Dec 5 16:56 UTC 2000 |
Yep, go ahead and whitewash the whole county, make sure that every vote [not]
counts. But will it play in Peoria? (Depends on whether Peoria is under
Chicago's thumb, I guess.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 305 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:01 UTC 2000 |
That's the reason the Democrats have not endorsed the litigation - it
conflicts with their call that every vote should be counted. Nonetheless,
it seems no more fair to exclude the ballots of people whose votes were
not properly tabulated by machines in other counties. For the Republicans
to argue that certain overseas absentee ballots should be counted in
violation of Florida law, and that various other absentee ballots should
be counted despite violations of a fraud prevention statute in the
application process... doesn't that make it somewhat hypocritical for
them to oppose hand counts that are specifically authorized by statute?
|
mdw
|
|
response 306 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:08 UTC 2000 |
I think the issue is that they *weren't* properly filled out. Having
election officials selectively fill out Republican ballots sure sounds
like fraud to me.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 307 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:09 UTC 2000 |
The problem with hand-counting as it's been done in strategic democratic
dominated counties only is the 30-something varities of ways the counters have
used to try to divine voter intent. No one has ever averred that absentee
ballots were not filled out correctly, in a manner that would require someone
to have to divine intent.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 308 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:10 UTC 2000 |
Read very slowly and carefully mdw: The *ballots* were not touched by any
elections officials. At issue are the ballot *applications*. Such documents
in no way indicate anyone's preferences for elected office.
|
mdw
|
|
response 309 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:26 UTC 2000 |
I believe the actual data field missing was the "election number", some
sort of identifying code probably used to determine if someone voted
more than once. Presumably, the election officials had access to the
full thing the voter had filled out, application *AND* votes [if they
weren't in fact one document], because the news report is they were able
to identify those ballots belonging to "republican" voters and
selectively filled those out. If the news report is accurate, wouldn't
you call that fraud?
|
aaron
|
|
response 310 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:48 UTC 2000 |
re #306: Fraud suggests malfeasance. This could simply be misfeasance.
re #308: The Florida statute was given its present form to prevent
fraud in the application process, which necessarily carries over to
the election process.
re #309: The Republicans sent out the applications, containing what they
thought was all necessary information save for a date and
signature, to probable Republican absentee voters. It was not
difficult for them to identify and correct only those
applications, as they had designed and printed them.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 311 of 409:
|
Dec 5 17:51 UTC 2000 |
The last news report I heard on this said that the Republicans were
given access to the applications to correct them but the Democrats
were refused similar access to correct Democratic applications. But
the details have been confusing and contradictory in several reports
I have heard. Maybe now that the other stuff is getting cleared away,
we will hear an accurate report about the absentee applications.
|
carson
|
|
response 312 of 409:
|
Dec 5 18:07 UTC 2000 |
(applications. here, one more time: applications. once more, with
CAPS: APPLICATIONS.)
(the officials were able to identify the APPLICATIONS sent out by
Republicans because the APPLICATIONS were missing voter ID numbers. the
Republicans were permitted to fill-in the voter IDs on the APPLICATIONS in
Martin County because the Martin County office didn't have enough people
there to fill-in the missing IDs *as other counties were doing*.)
(any possible voter fraud could only have resulted if multiple ballots
were returned with identical voter IDs. adding the proper voter IDs to
APPLICATIONS, which had to be completed *before* an actual ballot could be
sent out, would not in and of itself result in fraud.)
(it's still questionable as to whether the APPLICATIONS became official
records once received by the county and thus should not have been touched
by officials from either party, but voter fraud isn't the issue.)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/12/11/county.html
|
gelinas
|
|
response 313 of 409:
|
Dec 5 18:49 UTC 2000 |
Since folks don't seem to understand: If you submit an incorrect,
incomplete or otherise invalid APPLICATION, you DON'T GET A BALLOT.
YOU do NOT get to vote. Period. End of discussion. You missed the
election. Just as if you slept through the whole day the polls were open.
You weren't there.
These incomplete, invalid APPLICATIONS were (apparently, allegedly,
to be determined as a fact in a trial court) IMPROPERLY AND ILLEGALLY
completed, THEREFORE the ballots they represent WERE NEVER CAST and
*should* be discarded. Just as the ones with improper postmarks *should*
have been discarded. (For all I know, my overseas ballot _was_ discarded.
But that was more than a decade ago, and in Michigan, not Florida.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 314 of 409:
|
Dec 5 19:16 UTC 2000 |
carson, it is incorrect that voter fraud can only occur if multiple ballots
were returned. In fact, the 1998 case of absentee ballot fraud, which led to
the present language of the application statute, did not involve multiple
voting - it involved ballots being issued to ineligible voters.
|
carson
|
|
response 315 of 409:
|
Dec 5 19:35 UTC 2000 |
(hmm. I hadn't meant to exclude that possibility, but rather to say
the fraud would be in the ballot counting, not the ballot issuing. you
are more correct than I.)
resp:313 (apparently not in some Florida counties, where the officials
were completing incomplete absentee voter applications. if
that's what the judge rules, then more than the [15,000 by some
reports] Martin County votes would be tossed.)
|
mdw
|
|
response 316 of 409:
|
Dec 5 20:23 UTC 2000 |
This is sounding more and more convoluted, the more I hear. Also, I had
thought this involved seminole county, not martin county - or are these
actually different cases with different things happening? In any event,
it will be interesting to hear what the judge(s) decide really happened,
and how the judges interpret whatever laws are involved.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 317 of 409:
|
Dec 5 20:31 UTC 2000 |
The same things happened in both Seminole and Martin counties. They
are different cases, however.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 318 of 409:
|
Dec 5 20:48 UTC 2000 |
Salon has an article this week alleging that the private contractor
hired by the state of Florida to provide lists of felons ineligible
to vote apparently returned a very high rate of false positives, so
that in counties where the lists were accepted as valid, a substantial
number of erroneously identified supposed felons were removed from
voter lists and denied the vote when they reached the polls unless
they were able to prove that they were not felons (and how, one may
ask, are you supposed to do that?) In other counties the lists were
refused when their inaccuracies were noted, in one case because a
county election official found her name on the list erroneously.
Of course those counties have to deal with the hysterical but effective
Republican spin campaign about "felons who are allowed to vote when
absentee ballots from our men and women in uniform are rejected on a
technicality.."
Unfortunately the Salon piece tries to spin an unlikely conspiracy
angle on the story by pointing out the company's owners' ties to the
Republican party (news flash: company's owners vote Republican..) but
the real story, in my mind, is the by-now-too-familiar story of what
happens when data mining companies are contracted to perform a task
like this without proper safeguards on the process.
|
carson
|
|
response 319 of 409:
|
Dec 6 00:24 UTC 2000 |
(actually, the confusion stems from *similar* incidents in Seminole
and Martin counties. the reference I posted discusses the Martin
County case. I can't speak to the details of what happened in
Seminole County.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 320 of 409:
|
Dec 6 02:26 UTC 2000 |
Re the 2nd par of #315: that's why 313 says, "apparently, allegedly, to be
determined as a fact in a trial court." ;)
|
polygon
|
|
response 321 of 409:
|
Dec 6 03:26 UTC 2000 |
The right answer to do it Michigan's way, and allow all resident U.S.
citizens of the appropriate age to vote, regardless of their prior sins.
Or at a minimum, there ought to be a reasonable time limit of no more than
ten years. It's ludicrous that there are 65 year olds who aren't allowed
to vote because they were in trouble at age 18.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 322 of 409:
|
Dec 6 06:28 UTC 2000 |
It's the Republican way.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 323 of 409:
|
Dec 6 06:47 UTC 2000 |
I'm catching arguments in the Seminole County case on C-SPAN right now.
The canvassing board's attorney, Greg McNeil, has pointed out that if
these voters had not gotten an absentee ballot, they *probably* would
have either checked up on it and so gotten one OR would have shown up
at the polls and voted in person.
|
aaron
|
|
response 324 of 409:
|
Dec 6 13:28 UTC 2000 |
So what, then, was the harm in letting them chedk up on it, or letting them
vote in person? Why circumvent the legal process?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 325 of 409:
|
Dec 6 17:43 UTC 2000 |
In the closing minutes of the pre-trial hearing (which is what I happened
across), the judge asked the plaintiff's attorney about what difference
this action would make: was it clear in the paperwork that throwing out
the ballots would change the result? The attorney (whose name I didn't
bother noting) cited a few paragraphs that he thought made the point that
it would change the outcome and then said that if they weren't enough he'd
move to add "the magic words" now.
The plaintiffs survived the motion for dismissal; the case will go on to
trial.
From this exchange, it seems pretty clear that if the result of having
let/forced the voters to either follow up or vote in person would still be
a convincing vote for Governor Bush, then it would seem no harm occurred,
therefore this case will fail and the ballots will stand. We'll see.
Should the applications have been refused and no ballots issued based
on them? I think so. Would refusing to issue ballots have made a
difference in the outcome of the election? I don't know.
|