2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumElection Integrity Project: "We have never seen such widespread mismanagement or manipulation of the
Election Integrity Project: "We have never seen such widespread mismanagement or manipulation of the voter rolls."
I had noted that a couple of people had mentioned that The Election Integrity Project was going to be doing exit polls in California so I reached out to them to ask if that were true and if so when they'd have the results. Turns out that was misinformation. They emailed me back this morning and confirmed that they didn't conduct exit polling, that's not what they do. But they did have this to say:
The Election Integrity Project doesn’t do exit polling. We have volunteers trained in what the California election codes say about the running of the polls and the election process.
The report we will be providing will have more to do with the integrity of the election process. I can tell you know that we have never seen such widespread mismanagement or manipulation of the voter rolls. There were serious problems because so many people had their party affiliation and their preference for voting changed without their knowledge.
Republican voters were changed to No Party Preference, which meant they could not vote with the Republican ballot and were forced to vote provisionally. Democrats were changed to No Party Preference (in smaller numbers) and were forced to vote provisionally. Citizens were changed to Vote-by-mail but never received a ballot so were forced to vote provisional.
We are wondering if there is a problem with VoteCal since the problem was so widespread. Journalist may want to look into this.
Well journalists, do you?
There website is here. https://www.electionintegrityproject.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4n8bct/election_integrity_project_we_have_never_seen/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I kept a live blog of issues and suspected something was afoot
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in any of the primary states that Sanders won?
I haven't seen any on DU, nor in the media ... I was wondering if you, as a journalist, had heard of any reports/complaints.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
randome
(34,845 posts)Ignore list imminent! Posting privileges will be revoked! Look out!!!!!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As I explained below ... I figure that, as a journalist, she would be plugged into sources beyond facebook and partisan blogs.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)results, if their side has won. However, if one thinks a bit further, just because they
did not complain, it does not necessarily mean that they couldn't have won by even a
larger margin, had there been no cheating involved. Does it?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)But the exchange went pretty much as I expected.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But I did follow the issues. And PR was particularly good at triggering memories of the PRI in Mexico. Nor do I expect you to understand why those memories were fantastic. As a journalist I am concerned about this shit regardless of who it benefits. And as a Journalist I expect this crap in November.
As a person I will laugh if this election is stolen from the Dems, the partisans on this site will have a come to Jesus moment though, like oh 2000 many Democrats did, less so in 2004. Myself I will have zero sympathy, but will be concerned about it nonetheless. Just don't ask me why I don't get it, because I actually do.
Oh and what you saw in WI and AZ, for example, were dress rehearsals for November. Should be fun 
You either care about this issue all the time or you don't. It does not matter who benefits or loses at the moment. And people Like Common Cause also noticed the pattern. It is like pregnancy, you either are pregnant, or you are not. There is not being half pregnant.
The only thing that in the end loses regardless of who does it is legitimacy. A dirty government, cochino gobierno, to be 18 again
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I figured, as a journalist, you would be plugged into more than facebook and partisan blog accusations.
So ... while your response seemed really defensive, I can't tell whether it was a "Yes" or a "No."
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)exact same pattern
They highlighted New York, Wisconsin and Arizona. I highlighted PR, after diving head first into the LOCAL PRESS.
And I expect two out of those three states, to be really big in issues come NOV, and I expect people here to scream as well.
And depending on the answer I do get, I will decide whether to do a PRI from the SOS of CA. Those can be a bear to do.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the question was:
in any of the primary states that Sanders won?
I haven't seen any on DU, nor in the media ... I was wondering if you, as a journalist, had heard of any reports/complaints.
Sanders did not win New York or Arizona, though he did win Wisconsin. Could you post a link to Common Causes's analysis? Thanks.
What's a PRI?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)depends on the answer I get, and yes it does answer your question, NON PARTISANS are seeing a pattern that is actually is quite partisan. It is a pattern you do not like.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that you still haven't provided you still haven't provided a link, or an answer that can verify the alleged pattern.
As a journalist, surely, you can see the problem there.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)suffice it to say, I rarely read emails, that caught my attention.
So now we have not one, but TWO voting integrity folks raising alarms, Hmm, we got the beginnings of a pattern, to be ignored by the hyper partisans of course, until November.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that said ...
So now we have not one, but TWO voting integrity folks raising alarms,
No ... What I have is a link to a reddit post that says: "Election Integrity Project: 'We have never seen such widespread mismanagement or manipulation of the voter rolls'."
and provides a link to the Election Integrity Project's website:
But, I haven't been able to find the EIP statement on the website ... AND, the website does seem to have been up-dated since September 8th, 2015.
(maybe, you'll have better luck)
And, I have you telling me what Common Sense says ... and telling me to look it up!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)deal
I am not going to do that work for you.
I know who Common Cause is, You obviously don't.
I even know the LOCAL common Cause folks, they work year in and year out in voter and election integrity, and could give two shits who wins as long as it is clean.
commoncuase.org it is a very real organization, ok. I am nor surprised you do not believe anything I say, by the way, It I told you we are in the midst of June Gloom you would not believe it it either. This is but one more demand from you and I intend not to comply with your demands, You can go look it up.
In other words I owe you nothing. Nor do I think you ask in good faith. Or that in this case you have an honest question, That is the precise reputation you have with me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In other words I owe you nothing. Nor do I think you ask in good faith.
when asked for a link or citation to they assertion ... but, I guess that's understandable when the other "proof" that you offered, didn't pan out. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2166263)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Sorry. I don't play those games anymore.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know you do not believe me, and I know I don;t believe you,
Strange huh? But I do not. So stop pretending you are asking anything in good faith, because you are not fooling me
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)again, a curious position for a journalist to take.
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)
Post removed
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)your "fucking" claim? (though I'll go through it and see if it is supportive ... we know how the Election Integrity Project support panned out).
I see. Asking a journalist to provide a direct source, supportive of the journalist's assertion, invokes anger ... How, positively, stable you seem.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You don't want an answer. You do not care if you got answered. In fact, I doubt we care about the same things. We like have anywhere from zero to nada in common.
Next you will tell me the gutting if the VRA has nada to do with this.
And yes you make my blood boil. People who should know better. But the party argle bargle, we won, that is the only thing that matters. Well you "won" and due to what or how it happened, it is as legitimate as Bush 2000, or for that matter 2004. I consider US elections as clean and legitimate as Mexican elections. And this was a Dedazo.
Have a good day. And congratulations. In the same way most Mexicams who are actually aware consider those victories as well.
Oh and lastly people who have had their right to the ballot denied in a systematic way should be angry.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)The Protect the Vote people promote non-partisan voter protection which means that they cannot appoint poll watchers and are limited to poll observers who have to stay 100 feet from the entrance of the voting location. The big downtown law firms set up voter protection boiler rooms but they can not coordinate with political parties or appoint poll watchers. It is a way for big firm lawyers to rack up some pro bono hours but this group is not set up to accomplish much (some big firms have quotas for pro bono hours).
Political parties and candidates get to appoint poll watchers who can actually enter the polling location and observe the voting process. I work with the local county party and candidate and so I get to train poll watchers who are more effective than poll observers who have to stand 100 feet from the entrance of the voting location. I have been training poll watchers for my county, other counties and for Battleground Texas for a while
The Protect the Vote people are snotty to partisan voter protection types like myself but I feel that I can accomplish far more working with the party and the candidate than I can from 100 feet outside the polling location. My poll watchers can step outside and call me in the war room and I can usually get problems resolved (having the cell number of the local election officials helps).
In addition, there certain actions that a non-partisan group would not have standing to complain about. Candidates and political parties have standing and so go to the court house if necessary to extend hours. In addition, there is a cease and desist order against the RNC in a federal court in New Jersey that the DNC has the right to enforce. If we see true voter caging or actions like that, the state party can call the DNC who has lawyers standing by to get an injunction if the C&D is violated.
Again, the group in the OP does not engage in what I consider to be voter protection. The Protect the Vote people are good people but are not that effective.
Again, this is an area where I have done a ton of volunteer time.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Does the lawyer group you work with require a bar number? ... you folks do good work, and though this is far from my area of expertise, I believe I could get up to spped; but, I haven't held a ticket in more than a decade.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)The Clinton legal volunteer program is very well organized. You have to sign a confidentiality agreement and they have a well written memo what a lawyer can or cannot do and violate the FEC rules (using firm westlaw is a big no no).
There are other opportunities that do not require a bar card. We need poll watchers all over and Arizona may be a battleground state.
I can e-mail the staff person at the victory counsel program or you can sign up and ask.
Right now they are trying to get me to go to a battleground state and help. I prefer to stay at home but we will see.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that cites to non-empirical, non-analytical news articles and opinion pieces?
I would be embarrassed.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In November you will find out. I will laugh at your new found outrage
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Indeed, with "journalist" being the operative word.
Bravo for at least trying to get a coherent response, 1SBM. I got fed up just reading through the sub-thread. Yikes, and this passes for "journalism"?
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)I ignore these things because so much is so easily available. They ONLY do it to ARGUE and try to make so much seem trivial and untrue. I got fed up with it so very long ago because I saw THIS pattern far too many times and it's ONLY increased.
Even watching subjects that arise on TV shows or what others may tell me I make a note to ALWAYS research it MYSELF!
Fear of truth is what this country is so very good at. And DO NOT think I'm going to baited by others here, check it out or don;t respond!!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is sourced to a Face-book page ... which should be trivialized as untrue, unless there is/are links to more substantive sources ... which it rarely has.
That's a wise practice ... but, wouldn't it also be wise to start by examining the initial claim ... so that you can tell whether the sources matches the claim?
I have no fear of the true; but, I dislike opinion being passed as "truth"; and have zero respect for those that do it and take offense when called on it, rather than offer up their proof ... and the same goes for those defending them.
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am positive in your mind they are
Next I will hear other organizations slammed because they do not agree with you. It is a pattern we have seen over the course of the last 20 years, When organizations note a pattern a certain group of Hyper Partisans do not like, they get slammed
(Oh and for the record, at times even those you hate, notice something that is just well, valid)
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)I haven't seen anything by them about this. But no I don't trust anything that comes from a group that promotes voter ID laws and election monitors (intimidators). Keep flailing away at your strawman though
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)this is a pattern, have a good day.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)
I'm asking you to post a link to what "patterns" organizations have found ... you refuse because of the 1943 Riots in L.A., and other civil rightsy stuff ... and because you don't think I'm asking in "good faith."
Then, you cite as "proof" of the pattern ... the not provided source and a Reddit comment, citing to an article by the EIP and its website ... but, the website, neither, contains the article, nor does it appear to have been updated since Sept. 2015.
But that is somehow suppose to prove, or even identify, the pattern?
I REALLY don't know what to do with this.
{Eited to correct date of website up-date.}
Number23
(24,544 posts)And considering both you and your target, I bet you didn't even crack a knuckle. 
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and by the way, that is the way things like the cvil rights happened, by people doing nothing.
Don't worry, in November we will have shenanigans, guaranteed, and then you will scream because those were Republcians you see. It is transparent at this point.
but please, do absolutely nothing and continue to believe that all is fine.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Which raises a different question ... was the Bernie Reddit page being played ... since the "statement" does not appear on the site and the site doesn't appear to have been up-dated since Sept. 2015?
Squinch
(50,949 posts)And if anyone would have had the sources, she would have. Being that she is a journalist.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm guessing the answer would be, "Yes ... well, maybe, Wisconsin", but since it was lumped in with Arizona and NY, neither of which Sanders won, I can only guess.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)Was that Hillary?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Wait! People are saying that a HRC Presidency will be a continuation of President Obama's Administration! ... Tricky ... Tricky!
Squinch
(50,949 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)on your beat?
The only specific report I've seen was about a defective touchscreen voting machine -- in a county that uses paper ballots and optical scanners.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)And I replied here, after I went to that county's website and found a demo of their paper ballot and optical scanning system.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=383291
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)and wrong are relative to who is the taker and who is the takee in their minds. All of the cheating that took place, yet the fake intellectuals here act oblivious to it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)themselves Democrats, but support war mongers to be hypocrites and right wing.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I guarantee people see things like this though a partisan lens,
The pro empire, war goes with it of course, and neoliberal laizze faire, policies, are RW
I am just very careful with the language, that is all.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
Raster
(20,998 posts)...the same "mismanagement/manipulation" issues. In fact, it seemed to be almost always states were Clinton "won," and, it appears the "errors" ALWAYS SEEMED TO FAVOR CLINTON.
Is that the answer you were phishing for? Good enough set-up?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I was asking a sincere question.
Possibly unrelated question (perhaps, you will see the relevance): Why do African-American (and Latino) marijuana possessors have a higher incarceration rate than white marijuana possessors?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
Especially by you.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Since when do you care that I, especially, me, might not like your answer?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but the road we went down to get to that point start with the 1943 riots in Los Angeles, right though the civil rights movement, the end of Jim Crow, the Nixon administration and end up in 1994 with the Crime Control Act.
And right now everybody is making lots of money out of it, well, except those under federal, state and local court control They just tend to be PoC. Nor is it accidental. But since I do not just blame one party and see is a rebuilding of Jim Crow, I expect this to be somehow partisan.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In fact, I don't recall EVER discussing the 1943 L.A. riots with anyone, as I didn't know there were riots in LA in 1943.
Or,
See Post #44.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I would think you would.
Curiouser, you are correct.
But this project is fully bipartisan and structural
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)PepperHarlan
(124 posts)There won't be any more epic exchanges between you guys anytime soon.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Notice how when people can't support the claim, they become victims of the establishment's plot to discredit all that is good, true and holy?
Raster
(20,998 posts)...from the insincere ones. They both can have the same feel.
The answer is simple: because of their skin color. The justice system, in many cases, is racist as hell, especially when it comes tpo incarceration rates. I live in Maricopa County, Arizona. We are the poster child for racial inequality in the justice system.
Possibly unrelated question (perhaps, you will see the relevance) Perhaps you'll explain what you believe are the relevant aspects?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Possibly unrelated question (perhaps, you will see the relevance) Perhaps you'll explain what you believe are the relevant aspects?
Could another response be:
Because we tend to look for, and therefore, find, what we are looking for to support other agenda? In the case of marijuana possessors, L/E is motivated to find PoC marijuana possessors, as it supports the criminality of PoC narrative; whereas, looking for/finding white marijuana possessors, does not further the narrative.
Likewise, partisans are motivated to look for/find "mismanagement/manipulation" in the states they lost, as it supports the "we were cheated" narrative; whereas, looking for/finding "mismanagement/manipulation", in states they won, does not.
Raster
(20,998 posts)I would like to see an independent, non-partisan third party examine Democratic Primary 2016 and tell us what they find.
And you know what? I think we just might get that. Why don't we pick this conversation back up in, say, 2 years?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It pains me to see so much touting of blog articles and face-book screen shotsposts, as primary and definitive sources.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...that no one EVER has to question the accuracy or the validity of ANY ELECTION. This was such an important election: (1) to the youth/millennial vote; (2) to the female vote; (3) to PoC; and (4) to all Democrats, in general.
The perception, and one I have to agree with, is that Hillary Clinton was --as far as the Party hierarchy was concerned-- the presumptive nominee before one single vote was cast, and then it seemed to move downhill from there.
If we are asking youth, PoC, women and new Americans to believe in the democratic process, we need to make sure the democratic process is fair and valid for all. No exceptions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I completely agree. But ...
(On the whole) It is not PoC, or women, or "new Americans", questioning the accuracy and/or validity of the democratic process ... and neither did Sanders' supporters ... until elections were lost.
Raster
(20,998 posts)...right from the start. The "how dare he" attitude was thick as mud right out of the gate. This could have been diffused if there had been a VALID, CONCERTED EFFORT to ensure fairness, which was NOT done.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And Florida. It is new to me that sanders ran that year. This goes beyond Sanders. It always has
My husband likes to say it comes and goes. But starting with that election I started to see patterns. 2004 did not help. The gutting of the VEA did not help at all either
I wish truly this was just Sanders and this primary. It is not
Raster
(20,998 posts)...instead it turned into "fuck it, I'll just go to Starbucks."
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and that poster you are talking to has dome quiet a bit of the minimizing and denial.
I asked the folks who started this, the OP, I shall wait for their answer, but I might as well start with the PRR... like mass incarceration, and the prison industry nobody wants to talk about it
In 2004 I had a lady ask for proof of citizenship, illegal as can be. Ever since I carry a fucking passport when i go vote. This year I had to say the words "crossover primary democratic ballot TWICE) for them to give the proper ballot to us. These are not just things that have happened to people on the facebook who posted their stories. Some have happened to ME.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I was part of a team investigating voting machine "irregularities" in Florida. We took our findings to former Congresswoman Karen Thurman, then the Florida Democratic Chair in 2005. She pooh-poohed the whole thing, and just brushed us off.
In 2006, we had sworn affidavits from voters who had "voted" but swore they DID NOT VOTE in that election. 5 Democratic congressional candidates filed a lawsuit alleging fraud, and the Dems in the US House swept it under the rug, and somehow got 4 of the candidates to drop the suit.
Now the Florida Democratic Party is run by a former ChoicePoint (voter purge 2000) employee and lobbyist. Her husband also happened to be on the Bush v Gore legal team. On the Bush side.
This is probably my last election, and I just plain don't give a flying fish anymore.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That's curious ... Do you have a citation for the law suit? And, how do Dems in the US House sweep a judicial filing under the rug?
ancianita
(36,048 posts)have never sent them a dime and yet they let me spend their postage a few times a year to do it.
This problem has got to be solved by amendment ratification.
Not one progressive in congress has come up with anything.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it seems there are "democratic" (small "d"
concerns and Democratic (big "D" concerns. The mismanagement/mishandling (i.e., voter disenfranchisement) concerns would small "d" concerns ... and, they didn't appear until primaries/caucuses were being lost. The "How dare he" attitude would seem to be a big "D" Democratic Party concern that arose around Sanders' compliance with Democratic Party rules (i.e., you must be a (registered) Democrat to run for the Democratic Party's nomination).
These issues/concerns were/are unrelated to the mismanagement/mishandling issues of the OP.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)registered with the American Independent Party, thinking that made them independent.
Or with people who were non-affiliated but, when they got their postcard asking them to denote what ballot they wanted, didn't check off "Democrat."
Or people who missed the deadline for registering as non-Affiliated or Democrat.
Ordinary Democrats haven't reported any significant problems, and neither have Republicans (who had a closed primary).
The Dem Party wasn't required to open its primary to non-affiliated voters, but decided to do so, as long as people met the deadlines and asked for Dem ballots. It wasn't the Dems obligation to go recruiting among non-affiliateds, looking for people who might want to vote Democratic.
Bernie's campaign should have been spending more on phone banks and voter education, and less on huge rallies and rock bands.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)I have volunteered a great deal in this area and I have never heard of this group. This group appears to be based in California and is not active in normal voter protection operations. This group seems to be focused on voter rolls and finding reasons to purge voter rolls. These reports of dead voters always make news but rarely pan out when looked at. If there are dead people voting, it will be by absentee ballots and not in person voter impersonation. If true, these cases are easy to prosecute and will be investigated. The trouble is that every time law enforcement looks at these so-called cases they find out that there is nothing to these reports. The latest such example of an investigation into dead people voting involves South Carolina https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-case-of-zombie-voters-in-south-carolina/2013/07/24/86de3c64-f403-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_blog.html
“We just recently learned that there are over 900 individuals who had died before the election (and had voted) and at least 600 of those individuals had died way outside the window that an absentee ballot could have been sent, so we know for a fact that there are deceased people whose identities are being used in elections in South Carolina.”
— South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson (R), on Fox News, Jan. 21, 2012
“We found out that there were over 900 people who died and then subsequently voted. That number could be even higher than that.”
— Wilson, on Fox News, Jan. 12, 2012
“Without Photo ID, let’s be clear, I don’t want dead people voting in the state of South Carolina.”
— South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), in an interview that aired on Fox News, April 21, 2012
....Claims of voter irregularities often generate big headlines, but the follow-up generates much less attention. Believe it or not, the results of the full investigation into these claims has only now been revealed. So was any of this true?
The Facts
The State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) conducted an extensive probe, which was completed May 11, 2012. But the final report was just made public this month after a 13-month review by Wilson’s office. In fact, the report was only released after Corey Hutchins of the Columbia (S.C.) Free Times submitted an open records request under the Freedom of Information Act. He received the report the day before the 4th of July holiday — perfect timing for news designed to be buried......
The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.
For instance, sometimes a son had the same name as a deceased father, and poll workers mixed up a dead father with a living son. (This happened 92 times in the initial probe, and then further investigation found seven more examples.)
In 56 cases, there was “bad data matching,” in which the DMV records had the Social Security of a dead person associated with a living voter. The living voter — with a different name and birth date — properly cast a ballot. Thirty-two votes attributed to dead people were simply the result of too-sensitive scanners.
In one case, someone cast an absentee ballot before dying; their vote still counts under the law. In two other cases, people requested an absentee ballot, but died before returning it, so no harm was done. In other cases, the wrong voter was marked as having cast a vote, and then the marks were not completely erased. There were several other types of clerical errors, too numerous to mention. In the end, just five votes remained unresolved after extensive investigation.
In other words, there were not “hundreds” of zombie voters — just egg on the face of the politicians who promoted these “facts” across national television. So do they have any regrets?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Republican voters were changed to No Party Preference, which meant they could not vote with the Republican ballot and were forced to vote provisionally. Democrats were changed to No Party Preference (in smaller numbers) and were forced to vote provisionally. Citizens were changed to Vote-by-mail but never received a ballot so were forced to vote provisional.
Suggest that the problem(s) are/were "mismanagement"; rather than, "manipulation"?. While both are bad, the former is incompetence, i.e., without malicious (partisan) intent, and can be fixed; whereas, the latter indicates/implies, malicious (partisan) intent, i.e., conspiracy.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)How about using those spare and quiet 3 years AFTER a general election to do something about elections???
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And it seems to be almost exclusively on the Democratic side...few problems with republicans.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)It almost seems like they want it this way.
+100000
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)do they have cooties too?
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Where would you expect to see the problems?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They didn't seem to have the registration rolls issues.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)all the other R races?
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The Democratic Party of California allows NPP voters to participate in its primaries. And as for Republican voters being changed to NPP, I suspect that was largely intentional on their part, allowing them to influence the Democratic race rather than voting in their own party's non-competitive primary.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Indrpendants can request a D or R primary ballot. If they didn't specify they got an I ballot that had neither. State mailed out I ballots instead, voters had to bring them to polls to exchange for D ballots. Where they ran out of ballots or had registration rolls problems provisional ballots were used.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)They had to say so.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
Retrograde
(10,136 posts)In California, the 6 recognized political parties decide on a per-election basis whether persons registered as No Party Preference - we do not have an "Independent" designation except as part of the name of the American Independent Party - may vote in their partisan primaries. This time, the Democrats and 2 minor parties decided to allow it. The Republicans and 2 minor parties didn't.
The counties - the entities who run the elections - mailed out queries to people registered as NPP about 2 months prior to the election reminding them of this fact and asking them to reply (in my case, via the handy postage-paid card they sent) by a specified date in order to get the ballot they wanted. If not, they got the standard Non-Partisan ballot, which had all the races except president and party-specific offices, because county registrars are not expected to be mind readers.
California voters get at least 2 pieces of official information about a month before each election. One is the state voter's guide, which contains general information about the election process and information on all state-wide propositions and candidates. A summary of the voting information can be found here.
In addition, each county sends out a separate guide that contains details on local issues, a sample copy of the ballot, the voter's polling site (even permanent vote-by-mail voters like me have an assigned polling site), and an application for a mail ballot. This also tells the voter which party the county thinks he or she is registered with. If a long-term voters believe they were Republicans and now suddenly get Green Party sample ballots this is when they should contact their registrar and get the problem fixed while there is still time.
This story about voters' registrations being mysteriously changed seems to come up with every election Sanders loses, and I have my doubts that it's a real conspiracy. I think a large number of these people are casual voters who haven't bothered to check their registrations, or registered in a specific party for one election and forgot to change back (as was the case with one DUer who swore she had "mysteriously" become a Republican, only to have some other posters dig up some old posts in which she mentioned making the change herself and forgetting to change back). Since Obama was the only Democratic candidate running in California's 2012 Democratic presidential party, and since the 2014 governor and senate primaries were run under the new Top Two procedure, the last time many Californians voted in an election where party made a difference was the 2010 primary.
Mistakes do sometimes happen: the process is run by humans after all. But there are mechanisms in place to correct the mistakes - if they're brought to the attention of the right people in time to do something. California does a lot to inform voters - in multiple languages - but there are still people who find it easier to post complaints than to read the voters guides.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)
Jennylynn
(696 posts)Felt I would share my experience here, if no where else.
I'm happy to live in a state with open primaries. It's been interesting. Both Christina and I registered to vote by mail. 1/3 or more of our state does this. When our ballots arrived, there was no presidential candidate on mine. I had received a non partisan ballot!!! I can say for certain this was not due to how I registered, but forced me into a deadline to request a cross over ballot that I couldn't meet. So we went in person to vote early instead. When I asked for a crossover ballot I had to wait. A while. When it finally came and I went into my booth, I opened the envelope to find ANOTHER N/P ballot... There were lots of folks at the registrar very confused about receiving NP ballots and although I finally got what I needed... It was only because I was so set on voting in this primary. Frightening how simple it can be to confuse and outright hinder my/others' voting.
Alas, I did my part! 😁🇺🇸❤️
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts) valerief
(53,235 posts)look into this. We haven't had a free mainstream press for ages now.
senz
(11,945 posts)The lowest of the low have called us CTs for noticing and discussing the very real problems.
Those who sneered at our concerns deserve no respect from anyone ever.
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)Gothmog
(145,168 posts)They tried to intimidate voters until they got sued. I had poll watchers at all of the places where TTV had poll watchers to keep them from trying to intimidate voters. We got a couple of TTV poll watchers kicked out of polling locations
Il_Coniglietto
(373 posts)Their co-founder, Linda Paine, is also the founder of the SCV Tea Party, according to the Nevada Republican Assembly:
In October 2009, Linda co-founded the SCV Tea Party in Santa Clarita. In 2010 she stepped down from leadership to work with other grassroots leaders in southern California. Together they founded the SoCal Liberty Coalition with the goal of working together to stop the destructive influence of the Progressive movement by helping candidates who believe in the foundational principles of the Constitution.
It was through this effort that members of the Coalition learned about True the Vote, an effort in Texas that trains citizens to observe the polls with the goal of ensuring free and fair elections. Along with four other Coalition members, Linda helped found The Election Integrity Project, Inc. in December 2010 to bring the True the Vote principles to California.
http://www.nvra.com/Election_Integrity_-_Protecting_Against_Election_Fraud.pdf (PDF)
WhollyHeretic
(4,074 posts)They are big proponents of voter ID laws.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)So yeah I'm sure it's worse than it has been, and I'm sure it'll continue to get worse unless voting rights are reinstated.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)really.
Raster
(20,998 posts)The Voting Rights Act should be RESTORED AND STRENGTHENED.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Currently the is nothing in the constitution about a RIGHT to vote.
Raster
(20,998 posts)1. Equal Rights Amendment, stipulating the sexes are absolutely equal.
2. Human Rights Amendment, detailing PERSONS are humans, NOT corporations or other created entities.
3. Democratic Rights Amendment, guaranteeing the right to a valid, fair vote for all citizens.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know that is pie i the sky.
PufPuf23
(8,772 posts)I did the comparison of Google Search and Bing in the video within the past hour and the video is correct.
840high
(17,196 posts)kadaholo
(304 posts)HUGE NEWS REGARDING PRIMARY: LAWSUITS BEING FILED...OVER FRAUD IN THE 2016 PRIMARY. trustvote.org
The Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity is filing a series of lawsuits regarding the election fraud that has taken place in the 2016 Primary. The video is long but contains explosive information about election fraud in past and current elections.
MUST SEE FOR ANYONE WHO TAKES THEIR VOTE SERIOUSLY.
The "Protecting our Elections" video provides a brilliant historical perspective on voter fraud research by professionals who are putting themselves on the line every day to expose the scandalous impact of voting machines on our election. Yes, it's long but take it in chunks. efinitely worth your time!
Who won or lost the primary is not the issue...the issue is how long we will continue to let for-profit companies steal our elections?
BEYOND INCREDIBLE! Check it out at http://trustvote.org .
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)The Sanders supporters have filed some really bogus lawsuits including the case against the California Sec. of State that got laughed out of court http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141472541
...you might want to take the time to actually watch the video. Serious implications for the November election.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)The people behind this CT are nutcases and this case has no merit in the real world
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/
This is from the Nation which is a publication I would expect to support Bernie.
"The laziest iteration of these claims is that the exit polls have diverged significantly from the final vote tallies in many of the states Clinton won, and the same pattern isn’t evident in Republican contests. That’s simply untrue. The exit polls have been off in a couple of states, but for the most part they’ve fallen within the margin of error in both Republican and Democratic contests.
But the conspiracy-mongers aren’t really talking about exit polls. Their claims are based on obsessively parsing preliminary exit poll data that some media outlets publish when the polls close—the same data that political reporters always tell people to take with a big grain of salt because they’re notoriously inaccurate. (Most of their claims are based on the work of Richard Charnin, who runs a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s also a mathematician, as Tim Robbins notes, but as we’ll see, his calculations aren’t the problem.)
The writers hyping this stuff claim that those preliminary data are “unadjusted,” and therefore offer a true barometer of voters’ responses as they leave their polling places. They say that the preliminary data are then adjusted to conform to the official results. In the hour or so between when the polls close and the final exit polls are released, they say, votes have consistently shifted away from Sanders, and this indicates that pollsters are covering up election fraud. (That last bit is often left implied lest people consider how wide-ranging this plot must be.) And, central to the whole story, they say that looking at the way these data shift is a vital means of identifying potential fraud.
Every single part of that is 100 percent wrong."
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The actual vote. Elections are not based on numbers at rallies. I don't for one minute fall for the conspiracy theories, and I see these theories every time Sanders loses, ergo, the conspiracy is to try and overthrow the election results.
