Posted on 11/10/2012 4:05:42 PM PST by Kaslin
Eventually when the top heavy entitlement tree falls over, if we can still vote, some may see the light. Who knows?
I have a relative that voted for Barry because “he” gave her and her friends college (the Obama scholarship). She said, that Bush ran up the deficit and Barry has brought us back down.
College student and extended family member spitting out the “what he did for me”, what he gave me for free, and dem talking points on the deficit, not the true deficit.
I told her that my kids had to pay their own way and perhaps she should care that her cousins aren’t getting freebies.
I don’t have a pot to pee in, but that doesn’t mean I’m entitled to someone else’s pot to pee in.
I am worried about the future.
I'd like a solution that's as serious and scary as can be, something that will forever silence those jerks at my polling place with their little electioneering buttons and giggles over "vote early and vote often" and other such nonsense, all the people who go from one polling place to another to vote multiple times, the thugs intimidating poll watchers, etc.
I just don’t understand some of my fellow Americans.
I think of myself as an American. No hyphenated stuff. Sad it is. Most of the hyphenated voted on skin color and freebies. Lighter skinned Americans made the enemy. How can we overcome decades and decades of indoctrination? I don’t know anymore.
I don’t think you can decline to take the whole thing. And tearing up or taking home a ballot doesn’t make sense for anybody, much less 349 people. If people are allowed to do that, there is no way to document whether somebody was ever even GIVEN this or that page of the ballot. That by itself would invite voter fraud - and make a totally unaccountable system where voter fraud would easily be concealed. If this is allowable, the system is a crock from the outset and needs to be investigated for that reason if nothing else.
There were 397 people who undervoted. Of those, 349 hid the 2nd page of the ballot from election workers - going to the extra step of holding that page separate from the other, putting it in their purse, tearing it up, etc? That makes no sense to me.
What was on the first page and what was on the 2nd page?
Out of 175,554 people chosen at random, I gay-ron-damn-tee that at least 349 (0.2%) can be counted upon to do something that doesn't make sense.
I looked at their ballot and compared it to mine (granted I’m in another state and county, BUT, we are a very LARGE county, about 3 times the number of voters (at least) than St. Lucie. We have very good SOS and County Recorder. We had 15 props, judges, State, Fed, City, County elections on our ballot. The descriptions of our props saved space, and that problem of multiple ballots. One ballot, two sided, the machine reads both sides at one time, without re-feeding.
Very user friendly our County is.
The undervotes listed here are people who didn’t vote on the president. What did they vote on then?
I don’t always vote for school board, etc but I have never in my life failed to turn in all the pages of the ballot as instructed by the poll worker. Those pages are hand-numbered in Nebraska so that both pages can be matched up for the sake of accountability. Why would I deliberately screw with that method of accountability? The statistics showing undervotes ended up being critical in the 2000 debacle in Florida so the need to account for all those pages should not be something the elections officials took lightly.
Have you ever failed to turn in all the pages you were given? Have you ever asked not to be given a page? How would you even know what was on which page until you got them all, in order to know which page to reject?
Where can I see what was on each card in St Lucie?
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the number of voters who came through the door is equal to the number of votes cast for the President or 124,031. That first card would have included all the important races. And thus 124,031 of these first cards were cast.
I think that it is also reasonable to assume that some people [349 of them] could have cared less about what was on the second card and walked out with it rather than take the time to fill it out and cast it, thus the 247,713 number.
Fla. Stat. § 101.69 Deals with voting in person even though the voter has requested an absentee ballot. The voter must return the absentee ballot and the election officials will mark it "canceled"
Fla. Stat. § 104.17 Any person who willfully votes or attempts to vote both in person and by absentee ballot at any election is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Clearly § 104.17 is to prohibit more than one ballot per voter. It shows that the intent of an Absentee Ballot does not encompass in person voting.
The above illustrates that the purpose of Absentee Ballots is to enable voters who are out of the area to vote. It is for overseas voters (§ 101.698), or those in nursing homes (§ 101.655).
There is no provision in the law: to allow Absentee Ballots to be used in person; to be used to extend Early Voting.
Absentee Ballots were used to extend Early Voting in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties.
Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher, in her own words, "found a way around" the rules by using Absentee Ballots to extend Early Voting.
Broward SOE Brenda Snipes and Miami-Dade SOE Penelope Townsley used the same "in person absentee ballot" tactic to extend Early Voting.
Detzner, Bucher, Snipes, and Townsley need to be removed from office and prosecuted.
IANAL
-PJ
Sure does sound like playing fast and loose (oh, we’ll pass out these absentee ballots and we’ll collect them right on the spot!) but a state court could make about any hash of this it wished.
See post 111 for my thoughts on SOS Detzner.
I think that it is also reasonable to assume that some people [349 of them] could have cared less about what was on the second card and walked out with it rather than take the time to fill it out and cast it, thus the 247,713 number.
****************
Who knows what goes on when a person votes. I quite often don’t vote on all the lines, could care less about some of the items.
I’m okay with their hard count. Now there maybe have been fraud around but I believe the machine count is what they had to work with. Not all things are divisible by two like some are trying to do with this situation. Either you voted for President or you didn’t and that spot on your ballot showed one or the other and isn’t dependent upon whether you voted the other pages. Also don’t forget that some on FR have indicated they’d not vote for president if so and so was on the ticket.
Wait until these people get computer type devices to vote with, mark the square/touch the screen, review your choices and hit send to cyber space or some storage device to be read by another computer. Paper trails are going away.
I have been in polling places before where people have crumpled up their ballot and just walked out the door — and those were one page ballots.
In Florida where people were waiting 7 hours in line, and the 2nd card was filled with wordy propositions meaningless to most people, out of 124,031 people don’t you think that there were atleast 349 that did something with that 2nd card other than cast it???
I like my paper vote.
Mitt wasn’t my first choice, or second, but I bit the bullet and supported what I thought would be a chance at slowing down the demise, and inked in between the arrows for R/R.
Heck, the touch screen on this Pan Digital 7” tablet I have to use is all over the place. I like my pen and paper. Nice big arrows I can see!
Note from the data you provided that it even accounted for those who did not vote for President [397] as well as those who over voted [43]:
Times Blank Voted 397
Times Over Voted 43
Bumping this thread
I think that the Voting Rights Act needs to be revised — call it a broadening — to make it applicable throughout the country and to include vote fraud in any election with a federal race on the ballot. That would allow challenges to the entrenched corrupt practices in urban areas like Chicago, Philadelphia, and so on.
Another thing that comes into play is the 43 overvotes. That’s 86 cards that would have been handed out but that didn’t result in a Presidential vote. The 124,031 votes counted doesn’t include 86 of the 247,713 cards that were handed out. If you take the 123,591 total votes that were counted x2, it’s 247,182 cards. Add 82 cards for the overvotes that didn’t get counted, and it’s 247,264 cards handed out. They said they had 247,713 cards cast. That’s 449 more cards cast than can be accounted for by the votes counted or by overvotes. Even if all 397 undervotes were from people who voted the 2nd page and didn’t hand in the 1st page (people who ONLY voted for amendments or whatever was on the 2nd card), it would STILL not account for the 449 extra cards cast that didn’t result in a Presidential vote.
If the 397 undervotes turned in both pages the undervotes would account for 794 additional cards cast, besides the ones cast by overvotes 247,264 + 794 = 248,058 That would be 345 more than the 247,713 cards they say were cast.
Shoot. My mind is too tired to dig through the numbers any more.
Another question: Does every precinct have their own software, or is the software statewide? Has St Lucie ever had multiple pages on their ballot before? Having a tabulation column entitled “% Turnout” that doesn’t factor in the number of real people who showed up is negligent for a programmer who knew in advance that each person would have 2 pages.
How did they calculate the number of real people? For instance, how did they know whether person A who only used page 1 and person B who only used page 2 were one person, or two? Did they have serial ID#’s on those ballots, to match page 1 with page 2 for any given voter? They must have, because if they didn’t they’d have no way of knowing who undervoted or not, for those who only voted page 2. If so, then why wouldn’t they simply use the ID/ballot number to calculate the number of voters and thus the “% Turnout”?
See, the whole idea of counting the number of cards doesn’t make sense, rather than having serial ballot numbers that matched on page 1 and page 2, and then figuring out undervotes based on that - since an audit would require you to document how many people had voted (how many complete ballots were handed out to a real person who signed a voter list.
And even when you dig through these numbers, it still doesn’t explain why the early votes initially showed a 2000-vote lead for West and after a “re-count” showed a 2000-vote DEFICIT for West, which is a net difference of 4,000. They found 2,000 votes that they accidentally thought belonged to West when they really belonged to West’s opponent. Yeah, right.
All this together means an investigation is warranted. That’s what West is asking for. The only way these numbers make sense is if they ran a circus where there is no way to audit any of it.
There’s no reason there should be over a 100% percent turnout. There’s also little reason to believe it should ever get above 90% or more. I’m sure the average is much lower. So when you talk about 120% turnout you can assume that the number of ballots may even have been doubled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.