I'm Tired: A Soldiers View From The Front

The credibility issue is pretty much shot once you jump in with claims that are incomplete and deal with issues that should be common knowledge for anyone performing such an audit. Once you have lost credibility in one such area it is hard to maintain it in the rest of the report since it too is incomplete. There may be issues discovered with the report, but it appears they will be much less wide spread than the initial claims at best. Right now all he has is an incomplete report and egg on his face.

 

No, his credibility was shot in some people's eyes when he won the election to become auditor. We all know he stole the election right.

some pills are hard to swallow.....

 

It was a close election, but I don't recall anyone saying it was stolen, and I don't see anything to that effect in your link. Let's stick to the facts, shall we?

The State Auditor made claims that did not hold up when examined in the light of day. It is apparent his office conducted an audit they were not qualified to do, they did not have adequate knowledge of the law to understand what they were looking at, and they refused help from the SBOE to understand the data. What he has succeeded in doing is raising doubts about the integrity of our election process. This state is one of the few that does not have elected officials running the election process, and has a good reputation throughout the country for having clean elections. Les Merritt has done a disservice to the state.

 

That entire response illustrates the disrespect. It was an initial audit not a complete one, but now his office is not qualified to do an audit. The only disservice being done to the state is ramming down a change in voting methods that favor Democrats. This page highlights the problem area. Why in a governor's race would 62% of the provisional ballots be for a Democrat.


In every race highlighted on that page the percentage of provisional ballots is always higher for the Democrat. Why can they not follow the rules like the other parties? Let us call a spade a spade. Democrats want looser voting policies so they can attract more votes that have a hard time being verified and anybody that questions that policy is obviously stupid and irresponsible.

 

Not every race, but certainly most of them.

It does raise the question, though, as to why?

Do Democrats have a problem finding their own polling place? Or, to take the onus off of the Democrats, does the board of elections have a problem in assigning proper polling places to Democrats?

 

Both political parties are familiar with the demographics. A majority of those voters at the lower end of the economic scale tend to vote Democratic. People at the lower end of the economic scale also tend to move more frequently, for various reasons. People who have recently moved may have a harder time finding their polling place.

I'm sure you realize how those provisional ballots work. Any voter who shows up to vote and is not listed on the roll for that precinct is allowed to cast a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot is put into an envelope and identified as the ballot of that voter. After the election is over, the election workers then go through the provisional ballots and determine whether each voter is in fact eligible to vote. Those who are determined not to be eligible, their votes are not counted. Those who are determined to be eligible, those votes are counted. So the number of provisional ballots does not imply anything else except that those people apparently showed up at the wrong polling place.

In that governor's race you mention, over 55% of the total votes cast went to the Democrat, so the percentage of provisional ballots, while still out of proportion, is not as much out of proportion as it would appear.

 

I don't, when I vote I typically vote the first weekend that early voting is allowed. That usually gives about a month before the regular election. One more smart-butted quip to the wife and I could have been one of those votes.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Calm down. The sky is not falling. There is no evidence of massive voter fraud. The suggestion of massive voter fraud has been a popular right wing talking point for some time, but very little evidence of voting fraud has been produced.

I am seeing this audit in the context of Republican efforts across the country to disenfranchise a portion of the traditional Democratic base. U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin, in his testimony to Congress, referred to "caging" as a "direct mail term." Well, that much is true; it refers to the wire containers that mail is sorted into in some facilities. But in the case of vote caging, it refers to the practice of sending first-class mail, marked "do not forward," to all the registered Democrats in certain neighborhoods. Those would not be the more affluent neighborhoods. Those letters that are returned, and not delivered, are then used as evidence to purge those names from the voter rolls. Many of the voters who have been purged in this manner are military personnel, serving overseas or elsewhere in the country, who are still eligible to vote in their home precinct by absentee ballot. Many are students who are away at school. Many may have moved a short distance and still live in the same precinct.

If we truly believe in democracy, we should be making it easier, not harder, for eligible citizens to vote.

 

:lol::lol:

Actually, there were over 3.5 million votes cast in the general election in '04, it's not hard to imagine that a few hundred of them did make one too many smart-butted quips. :mrgreen:

 

I didn't mention any race in particular.

However, if we were talking about proportions, how about explaining the presidential race? Or the senate race. In both of those, the majority went to republicans, and yet the democrat provisional was still higher.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean you, I meant Pirate96 in the part of his post I included with that. I'm not saying the numbers are not out of proportion, just not as much as the 62% figure Pirate used would indicate. And I did address the reasons for the disproportion.

 

Yes, and no professional in their right mind would make such claims based on an incomplete understanding of the situation if they wished to be taken seriously in the future.

Because it favors VOTERS more?

Because more of the people who move around are registered Democrats? Novel idea that happens more often than you might think.

No, not always. The interesting part of this is the number of early ballots which was listed as 1,045,460 as the highest number for President. What percentage of this number is 380? (.036%)

Assuming these were registered as Democrats, which is unsupported by any fact in the link, and ignoring the current voter laws?

Odd, I thought provisional ballots HAD to be verified or they were not counted ... was this part of the audit report too?

 

They do have to verified and I think on average in NC about 35% are thrown out. The audit was not completed so who knows if that is included. Again we all no why the Democrats want the same day registration.

 

So the citizens can vote??

Just a guess!

 

Exactly the same can be said about the 2000 presidential election. When the shoe is on the other foot it is a different matter.

Nice way to highlight one side. Both parties are guilty. Under NC law if you move you must update your address with DMV within 30 days, but I guess the more important factor of voting is not as big of a concern.

Agreed it should be easier. Why go to a polling place at all? Let us also toss out the partisan gerrymandering of districts and design of ballots plus making it easier to add more political parties to the system. Instead in NC we call it a two party system, but it appears that it really is just one party.

 

No popular vote is not what the founders wanted to elect a president. Look at the map I posted the other day. George Bush clearly won a majority of states, but we all know he "stole the election" because he did not win the popular vote. Unfortunately the electoral college suffers some of these same issues. How often do the citizens of South Dakota see presidential candidates? Not often because they do not offer a candidate much and that is wrong.

No I am not fond of the Democratic party as they traditionally support a big federal government, support illegal immigration, support forced redistribution of wealth, support affirmative action, increase taxes, and restrict liberties.

The issue of trying to get more people to vote is not going to be solved by same day registration. Traditionally the last minute turnout goes to Democrats wonder why they seem to champion that issue. One big flaw with same day registration I see is for a party to pick up buses of people and take them to the polls which asks for abuse and money. What is wrong with requiring people to take ownership and responsibility. Elections do not sneak up on people and if you do not ensure you can vote then you spit on the blood of patriots past that guarantee you those rights. I am glad a person that has that lack of respect can not vote.

 

You seem to be missing the point in your attempt to blame Democrats. There is a problem with purging the voter registration as KD illustrated. The Post Office returning a letter is not proof of the voter moving, just prrof the Post Office did not deliver the letter. I have had letters returned in th epast year or so for my work address and I have been in the same location for 16 years. They resent the letters and I got them the second time. If the voter registration is to be checked in any manner it should be checked for ALL voters and in a complete manner. Also changing your address at the DMV does not affect your voter registration. You can register or change while there, but the two are separate entities with complimentary support.

That is part of the popularity of the early voting system, I believe. A remote voting capability would hopefully increase the participation.

Yes, that would be good but drawing districts by population would be interesting to attempt in any case.

I disagree there, the party of Bob is not going to make a difference unless it is large enough to meet the current criteria and would create more clutter on the ballot.

 

I believe that is the major reason for the opposition, political sides and it appears to hurt the side with which he disagrees more than it helps the side with which he agrees.

Maybe we should tie the vote to military service to ensure the "proper" respect?

 

Still no cause for the disrespect shown to Merrit and his staff.

No as that is not necessary due to the blood of former patriots, but to say that you can walk up to a poll and vote that is a big step. Heaven forbid we make people accept personal responsibility and actions and hold them accountable to a fundamental right of democracy.

 

The disrepect for Merrit and his staff was the result of the lack of understanding of the laws exhibited, the lack of coordination with the experts in that field, and the release of clearly inaccurate information because of the prior two issues. IOW, it was the result of the actions that do not earn respect but remove it.

I understand, you want people to hold the level of respect YOU believe is the proper level and hopefully that helps the political party you support. Not a problem, unless you wish to make it a requirement and then the rest of us get a say too.