Update on Ohio Voting 2004 trial

I think he needs something "big" to come out about the election, enough to convince at least the Democratic voters that he really won the election. It would shut up some of these "he can't win" Lefties around here, and give other Dems renewed confidence in JK as a candidate. In other words, he really won and can again. The media would have to cover it, of course, and that would be an obstacle.

Many who say he wimped, don't understand the GOP state had to agree to a recount, would rather he'd fallen on his sword, and facts, generally, don't affect the emotional conviction of 'if only.' The hostile media would not have allowed a fishing expedition, when much of what happened was the typical disenfranchisement and couldn't be put back. Like people who left the long lines.

Those most upset proceed on the emotional and don't let facts get in the way of a good grudge, not realizing how steep the impossibilities of finding proof in that state and environment. They just blame him for the loss because it was so close. Historically the closest ever against an incumbent, especially during wartime.

Many involved in this process since, just operate on the assumption 'if only' he'd gone fishing that day (with hostile media?) and drew attention to the issue. Well, we still don't have proof to take to court. These three circumvented the recount process, and happens every election. The Triad technician also instructed how to fix the sampling of electronic results.

The pre-selection was also shown on HBO's Hacking Democracy.

A bigger psychological hurdle to a recount was the 3 million popular vote, the Supreme Court already out, however mysterious more votes than voters that turned out to be. The GOP knew they needed a popular vote win after 2000.

I want to know why there were provisionals to consider one day, and maybe not enough the next day, after Carville's pillow talk. More needs to be brought out about the DNC sloppiness, lack of organizations, and lack of securing the votes effort. Convincing people that they need to get involved and work. Lawyers were there, overseeing secret voting. Richardson would not allow a recount in his state of NM, where a smoking gun was found in 2005, disenfranchising Native American and Hispanic.

However we vote in the future, which in most cases will be the form of electronic counting, even if paper ballots, our biggest hurdle is counting and recounting enough to determine outcome altering errors or mischief. States and the Holt Bill say 2 or 3%, but 20% will prove 97% of the contest. No election commission wants the hassle of 20%, and will not hand count in urban areas. Hand counting is also problematic in the results.

It's just the emotional of Kerry not saving us from Bush, as we both heard said, Tay Tay.

Oh come on!

There are real humans with real lives that would have had those lives significantly disrupted by having the process drawn out into weeks or months. Most of the people involved probably have other jobs, for example, or other activities, and only expect to be involved in an election for 1 day plus maybe a few hours here and there for training. Now require them to set their normal lives on hold and do a recount instead - for weeks - and probably very little pay - that's not something many would look forward to.

I'm certainly not saying it's an excuse - just that it's fair and reasonable to suggest that people might have had motivations other than political, to not fulfill their duties in the most meticulous fashion.

Being an inspector at the polls every Election Day since 2005, I can tell you that by the time I go home, I am so friggin' tired that even I almost don't care who won. By the time we are tallying at the end of the night, we just want to get the job done. Last election, I was the only one who actually inspected each absentee ballot after the judge read out the votes from it. (And people want all ballots hand-counted? They'd better come to my precinct and tell us a better way to do it than what we're doing with absentee ballots now. Just sayin'.)

I'm a poll worker, too, and much of what is done in name of machine selection, procedure, is because of convenience. Preferring to believe the vendor's hype about electronic voting, suspending normal critical judgment about cost overruns and 'glitches,' because salesmen promise the fantasy of a perfect, trouble-free election, paper-less was sold that way. They tout fully-tested, but we know now that the machines have never been adequately tested. The labs are paid by the vendors and don't test. The NIST says they can't even adequately write law for this electronic stuff.

Problem now is that all the companies sell junk, regardless of the soundness and simplicity of the proven optical scanner.

You like Danaher, but they too have had problems.

The 2004 election in Ohio was different, and pure politics. Everyone knew it would end in Ohio, and McAuliffe should have been especially careful. The Kerry team asked if anything more were needed and told no. The DNC were not aware of the potential for fraud, and just in 2006 did some higher-ranking admit they shouldn't have been so quick to move on after 2004.

When we have a fundie couple, supposedly one Dem and one Rep, watching eachother, manual buttons to multiple vote, there are suspicions. In traditional voting, machine allocation, weight of trashed ballots, all up to Blackwell.

Or even a combination of the two. Somebody who would never do anything illegal to throw an election, but has biases that cause them to dismiss the idea of a stolen election, so they just fudge the numbers to get the thing done with.

Even though what these 3 did was illegal, it doesn't mean there were enough votes there to change the outcome. We've got to clean up our elections, but I'm still not seeing 60,000 votes in Ohio except for the people who didn't get to vote in the first place which is where I think the real problem lies.

...this is good news. :party: I'm glad this is being pursued...all the way to the truth. I agree with you, Prosense, that it was political. But it might be a better thing to have it come out that “They did this so they could spend a day rather than weeks or months on the recount." A very partisan, divided nation might understand this better...but at least they will learn that there WAS a recount, and that it was conducted VERY badly. Most of my friends and family think I'm nuts when I talk about this. They haven't heard it on the 'news'.

There wasn't a recount.

...let me rephrase...

Original:

"...but at least they will learn that there WAS a recount, and that it was conducted VERY badly."


Correction:

"...but at least they will learn that there was SUPPOSED to be a recount, and that when attempted, it was NEVER done according to Ohio Law."


Better??:7


P.S. It's nice to know I have company in following this issue. :)

I'm involved in this issue to the exclusion of everything else. I write overly answers to questions, that make eyes roll.

As New York, we are the last state to comply with HAVA, but stopping e-voting is as hard as ever, because of all the misinformations and promises of convenience.

Still trying to figure out how best to amend Holt's Bill. When I have researched more among all my emails, calling further, will maybe post something.