The public should watch those ballots with additional video and other security measures, counted by hand. When we have the technology to review plays in a football game from all angles and with closeups, there's no excuse for ballots getting out of our sight. Scanners can provide rapid preliminary tabulations, but the official counts should be not only verifiable but fully verified.
Americans deserve no less than the most transparent, accurate elections ever seen in human history. Our descendants will thank us for it.
I still fail to understand why the balloting process does not work like the credit card receipt at a diner.
Undervotes are caused by individuals incapable of following simple instructions; they probably should not be voting anyway!
I'd truly like to verify your "lifelong republican" status, because your posts fit the "seminar" caller profile from talk radio.
That way I'd know if I owe you an apology.
Was there only one position on the ballot? More likely, people just didn't vote on that position but had other things they did want to vote on.
Hehehehe...:) The new chief of LA elections is Dean Logan. Previously he was elections chief of King County. Here in Washington where the previous gubernatorial election was overturned after enough "votes" were found on the 3rd count - 129 votes was the deciding factor.
Coincidence? I think not... For those in LA upset about this, check out http://www.soundpolitics.org and just read about Logan and the crap he pulled - documented cases of more votes than voters, unsigned mail-in ballots being counted, over-votes (two choices in a race) being counted, etc.
Good luck LA - you're gonna need it!
Why do they call these undervotes? I leave blanks on all my ballots and I am sure there are many people out there that also leave blanks. If I do not like either candidate then neither gets my vote!
You do realize there are plenty of undervotes in all elections, right? Sometimes you can't hope to find out enough about a candidate (a judge, for example) or find not a dimes bit of difference between the candidates or you only had enough time to study some issues and candidates but not all so you decide not to vote because you believe an UNINFORMED VOTE is a bad thing.
Some time ago California voters had a chance to add the choice "none of the above". It was defeated at the polls.
If I am not familiar with the candidates views I don't vote for either one of them.
I think it would a lot cheaper to add this line to the ballot then spend money on all these investigations.
What office is this for ?
Based on who they “want” to win. But of course, the democrats know best.
Can the media, the MSM actually pretend to accept a statement like Schroeder’s saying “ It’s inconceivable that a person would not vote for some one, after taking all the trouble to go to the polls ...”
I’ve personally done that many times. Voted in 12 or 25 sections of the ballot, and skipped 5 or 6 issues or races where I had no information or no opinion in that office.