Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Of course not. He's trading land for peace, like Chamberlain. I believe that's the meme.

Ah, thanks for help in properly framing the situation. So, I can feel as comfortable as a Czechoslavakian citizen circa 1937. I wonder if Arizonans will be allowed to seek asylum elsewhere as things get worse?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Ah, thanks for help in properly framing the situation. So, I can feel as comfortable as a Czechoslavakian citizen circa 1937. I wonder if Arizonans will be allowed to seek asylum elsewhere as things get worse?

Traditionally, we take them unless they're Jewish.

 

[Sloe Gin]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

gotta love the voter fraud in Nevada

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...echnicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

gotta love the voter fraud in Nevada

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...echnicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

Is this a new angle on the "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" line? Like "votes stolen in Vegas stay with the Reids"?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Traditionally, we take them unless they're Jewish.

Why wouldn't you take Jewish refugees in? Though your willingness to take us Arizonans in is appreciated. How big is your spare bedroom?

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

gotta love the voter fraud in Nevada

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...echnicians-are-members-of-SEIU-105815608.html

Gotta love the source they use for 'credible reports' containing the phrase 'patently false' about those claims and that the people complaining to the media never told the people actually working at the polling stations about the problems.

But I'm sure it's one giant conspiracy run by crab people.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Gotta love the source they use for 'credible reports' containing the phrase 'patently false' about those claims and that the people complaining to the media never told the people actually working at the polling stations about the problems.

But I'm sure it's one giant conspiracy run by crab people.

You never know what those folks at Area 51 have in those warehouses!

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Getting past any allegations of vote stealing, look at this quote from an LA Times story:

With cameras rolling, he showed that if anyone had an advantage it would be Angle, whose name gets checked off if a voter clicks the English option too many times or if his or her finger lingers too long on the opening screen.

If the Registrar of Voters is freely admitting that could happen, don't you think that maybe it's time to say, "Hey, these electronic voting machines might not be ready just yet?"

 

[moe24]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Getting past any allegations of vote stealing, look at this quote from an LA Times story:


If the Registrar of Voters is freely admitting that could happen, don't you think that maybe it's time to say, "Hey, these electronic voting machines might not be ready just yet?"

Reason #1 most areas in Michigan still use paper ballots. Too many reliability issues.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because of Florida, we rushed to judgement on punch card voting. It is a reliable, low tech, easily verifable system. The various problems in Florida resulted from the closeness of the vote, plus its significance, and a willingness of elected officials to just toss out their written rules for which ballots counted and which didn't.

I start with the premise that any system is vulnerable to jiggering at the hands of dedicated crooks. But punch cards had been used for years and there weren't any significant problems. Florida was a freak outcome, and we overreacted. But then, that's the American way.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Getting past any allegations of vote stealing, look at this quote from an LA Times story:

If the Registrar of Voters is freely admitting that could happen, don't you think that maybe it's time to say, "Hey, these electronic voting machines might not be ready just yet?"

I still can't believe places use ballots other than the optical-scan "fill in the oval" system. Seriously, people learn how to fill those out in 1st grade. Automatic paper trail, quick tabulation, etc.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because of Florida, we rushed to judgement on punch card voting. It is a reliable, low tech, easily verifable system. The various problems in Florida resulted from the closeness of the vote, plus its significance, and a willingness of elected officials to just toss out their written rules for which ballots counted and which didn't.

I start with the premise that any system is vulnerable to jiggering at the hands of dedicated crooks. But punch cards had been used for years and there weren't any significant problems. Florida was a freak outcome, and we overreacted. But then, that's the American way.

You're right that we over-reacted, but the punch-card ballots suck. The design is inherently confusing, the chads are prone to error.

I'd also note that Florida's recount rules were thrown out and rejiggered precisely because they didn't have any statewide recount rules - but I digress.

Optical scan ballots are the superior solution. They offer all of the punch-card benefits you note with far fewer drawbacks and much more reliable tabulation.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You're right that we over-reacted, but the punch-card ballots suck. The design is inherently confusing, the chads are prone to error.

I'd also note that Florida's recount rules were thrown out and rejiggered precisely because they didn't have any statewide recount rules - but I digress.

Optical scan ballots are the superior solution. They offer all of the punch-card benefits you note with far fewer drawbacks and much more reliable tabulation.

Fine, optical scan. Makes no difference to me. Please recall in Gore's three recount counties they had written rules for that election which specified only those ballots where the chads were completely punched out would count. That seem's pretty simple to me. But those rules were ignored, in the rush to find enough votes to make Gore president. It doesn't matter what rules you use for a recount, if you're going to count flawed ballots. That would have saved us watching those chumps trying to figure out what a voter's intent was based on dimples.
Punch the thing out or it doesn't count, period.

Also please recall, all of the media recount scenarios showed "W" the winner except one, where they counted overvotes, people who voted for two candidates for president. Next thing you know, we'll start counting ballots from people who would have voted one way or another if they'd actually voted.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

we vote absentee out of Colorado and received TWO ballots in the mail!!!

(they did have a good explanation though)

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Fine, optical scan. Makes no difference to me. Please recall in Gore's three recount counties they had written rules for that election which specified only those ballots where the chads were completely punched out would count. That seem's pretty simple to me. But those rules were ignored, in the rush to find enough votes to make Gore president. It doesn't matter what rules you use for a recount, if you're going to count flawed ballots. That would have saved us watching those chumps trying to figure out what a voter's intent was based on dimples.
Punch the thing out or it doesn't count, period.

The rules were ignored because the rules were incomplete and often contradictory. Florida's election law was a mess.

And to your point about flawed ballots - why were there so many flawed ballots in the first place? The answer is because the technology stinks. It's easy to say that people must punch it out all the way, but the system was rife with potential shortcomings. That's the issue.

Also please recall, all of the media recount scenarios showed "W" the winner except one, where they counted overvotes, people who voted for two candidates for president. Next thing you know, we'll start counting ballots from people who would have voted one way or another if they'd actually voted.

I'm not sure what W's lead has to do with this - I've not mentioned partisan results at all.

What is clear from Florida is that a) their laws for elections suck, b) the didn't have substantive recount procedures in place, and c) the punch card technology is very poor.

Compare that against the Minnesota Senate recount in 2008. Since the vast majority of Minnesota uses connect-the-arrow optical scan ballots (a system that is far more intuitive and error-proof than butterfly ballot punch cards), determining a vote in a hand recount was easy. Likewise, Minnesota's procedures for recounts were set in stone and reviewed in advance, thus all of the requisite poll workers were prepared for the entire process. There wasn't any of the legal scramble or competing standards that you had in Florida because Minnesota's laws were far more clear on exactly what to do.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here. If you want to argue that electronic voting machines are unnecessary and potentially problematic, you could have picked a far better example than Florida, 2000 to make your case.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The rules were ignored because the rules were incomplete and often contradictory. Florida's election law was a mess.

And to your point about flawed ballots - why were there so many flawed ballots in the first place? The answer is because the technology stinks. It's easy to say that people must punch it out all the way, but the system was rife with potential shortcomings. That's the issue.



I'm not sure what W's lead has to do with this - I've not mentioned partisan results at all.

What is clear from Florida is that a) their laws for elections suck, b) the didn't have substantive recount procedures in place, and c) the punch card technology is very poor.

Compare that against the Minnesota Senate recount in 2008. Since the vast majority of Minnesota uses connect-the-arrow optical scan ballots (a system that is far more intuitive and error-proof than butterfly ballot punch cards), determining a vote in a hand recount was easy. Likewise, Minnesota's procedures for recounts were set in stone and reviewed in advance, thus all of the requisite poll workers were prepared for the entire process. There wasn't any of the legal scramble or competing standards that you had in Florida because Minnesota's laws were far more clear on exactly what to do.

I'm just not sure what you're trying to say here. If you want to argue that electronic voting machines are unnecessary and potentially problematic, you could have picked a far better example than Florida, 2000 to make your case.

It's easy to recount punch card ballots, just run 'em through the machine again. As I've mentioned now, three times, all the rules in the world won't ensure an honest recount if you count flawed ballots and allow political types to determine what a voter "intended" to do. Big whoop te do about the so called "butterfly" ballot. Whose fault is it if people are too stupid or sclerotic to use it (especially since every voter in that county was sent a copy and since both parties agreed to the use of the thing in advance). Admit it, what was "wrong" in Florida was that Al Gore and his 747 full of lawyers wasnt able to steal its electoral votes and thus the election. I'm old enogh to remember when Jack Kennedy, Mayor Daly and Joe Kennedy's gangster pals stole a presidential election. I'd say historically, we're about even.

And I wouldn't use the Minnesota recount that saddled America with that juvenile a*s*s*h*o*l*e as a text book example of how recounts should go.

There were no more problems with the punchcards in 2000 than any election that preceded it, just a close outcome and a highly partisan effort to steal an election. If Gore wanted an "honest" count, why not just ask for a statewide recount instead of focusing on three heavily Democratic counties? He was concerned that those folks voices be heard, but no one elses. And who else but a shmuck like Gore would send out lawyers trying to invalidate as many absentee ballots from GI's as possible? And please spare me the woeful tales about how "difficult" it is to punch out the chads. It is if you're a moron, I'll admit. I believe I said optical scan is fine by me, and it is. Just stop trying to rewrite history. And please, please stop trying to convince me that profoundly flawed "recount" in Minnesota (home of Gov. Jesse Ventura) was honest. Save your breath.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You're right that we over-reacted, but the punch-card ballots suck. The design is inherently confusing, the chads are prone to error.

I'd also note that Florida's recount rules were thrown out and rejiggered precisely because they didn't have any statewide recount rules - but I digress.

Optical scan ballots are the superior solution. They offer all of the punch-card benefits you note with far fewer drawbacks and much more reliable tabulation.

The biggest thing was that everybody went "need technology now!!!" so they all went for the suped-up computer..... 'cause you know, computers will solve anything. They went head long into this instead of relying on proven methods. When I was in Massachusetts we used optical scanners... no big deal. I haven't voted in Virginia yet so we'll have to wait and see. With the opticals you have a single record, they are harder to mass produce with values on them (don't get me wrong, its not impossible), you can double check the results by counting by hand, etc. There is no real reason to use touch screens except if you're using some exotic voting method (preference voting, etc.) or your registered candidates list isn't available soon enough for a printing (which is just dumb).

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

The biggest thing was that everybody went "need technology now!!!" so they all went for the suped-up computer..... 'cause you know, computers will solve anything. They went head long into this instead of relying on proven methods. When I was in Massachusetts we used optical scanners... no big deal. I haven't voted in Virginia yet so we'll have to wait and see. With the opticals you have a single record, they are harder to mass produce with values on them (don't get me wrong, its not impossible), you can double check the results by counting by hand, etc. There is no real reason to use touch screens except if you're using some exotic voting method (preference voting, etc.) or your registered candidates list isn't available soon enough for a printing (which is just dumb).

As I've said, I think elections today are more honest than they've ever been, generally speaking. It's really only when the outcome is close that the results can be massaged to get the desired result. And because of their dominance of the political machinery in big cities, Democrats are generally in a position to do the "massaging" if they need to.

In the old days in Chicago (and who knows, maybe now) you'd show up at a precinct with your letter identifying you as a Republican poll watcher. The lady at the door would claim the Republican poll watcher was already there. You'd say wait, here's my letter, here's my ID, I'm the poll watcher for this precinct. Ssooner or later a cop would appear and arrrest you for making a fuss. Later that evening, round about 7:00PM, it would turn out that you actually were the Republican poll watcher for that precinct. We're so sorry for any inconvenience.
Never mind the funny business of people being registered to vote from Wrigley Field, like Dan Ackroyd.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

In the old days in Chicago (and who knows, maybe now) you'd show up at a precinct with your letter identifying you as a Republican poll watcher. The lady at the door would claim the Republican poll watcher was already there. You'd say wait, here's my letter, here's my ID, I'm the poll watcher for this precinct. Ssooner or later a cop would appear and arrrest you for making a fuss. Later that evening, round about 7:00PM, it would turn out that you actually were the Republican poll watcher for that precinct. We're so sorry for any inconvenience.
Never mind the funny business of people being registered to vote from Wrigley Field, like Dan Ackroyd.

The sad thing, a lot of people here are OK with this.

edit: do we really WANT to know the scale of voter fraud in the US? Should we have a commission to study it? Its 2010... time to bury these anachronistic problems.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

It's easy to recount punch card ballots, just run 'em through the machine again. As I've mentioned now, three times, all the rules in the world won't ensure an honest recount if you count flawed ballots and allow political types to determine what a voter "intended" to do. Big whoop te do about the so called "butterfly" ballot. Whose fault is it if people are too stupid or sclerotic to use it (especially since every voter in that county was sent a copy and since both parties agreed to the use of the thing in advance). Admit it, what was "wrong" in Florida was that Al Gore and his 747 full of lawyers wasnt able to steal its electoral votes and thus the election. I'm old enogh to remember when Jack Kennedy, Mayor Daly and Joe Kennedy's gangster pals stole a presidential election. I'd say historically, we're about even.

You're the only one talking about partisan results here.

And no, it's not 'easy' to re-count punch cards - the mechanical counting is less precise than optical scan, and the manual recount is more subjective - thanks to those hanging chads.

See evidence of confusion from Ohio:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A 1998 study of 32 Ohio voters in a simulated election found that punch-card voting systems may produce error rates as high as 15 percent for some voters.

And higher error rates from automatic counting compared to optical scan in California:

The error rate for punch cards was 2.64 percent, compared with 1.37 percent for optical scan and 1.99 percent for paper. The average error rate for all 58 California counties was 1.6 percent.

The error rate is only twice as high - no big deal, right?

And I wouldn't use the Minnesota recount that saddled America with that juvenile a*s*s*h*o*l*e as a text book example of how recounts should go.

We're talking about the recount process and the laws surrounding it. What does that have to do with who was running in those races? My point about process still stands if this were an election to determine the state's favorite color. Your rhetoric seems to fall apart there...

There were no more problems with the punchcards in 2000 than any election that preceded it...

That may be, but that's not the argument. The argument is that optical scan ballots are better than punch cards. Easier to use, more accurate, etc.

... just a close outcome and a highly partisan effort to steal an election. If Gore wanted an "honest" count, why not just ask for a statewide recount instead of focusing on three heavily Democratic counties? He was concerned that those folks voices be heard, but no one elses. And who else but a shmuck like Gore would send out lawyers trying to invalidate as many absentee ballots from GI's as possible? And please spare me the woeful tales about how "difficult" it is to punch out the chads. It is if you're a moron, I'll admit. I believe I said optical scan is fine by me, and it is. Just stop trying to rewrite history. And please, please stop trying to convince me that profoundly flawed "recount" in Minnesota (home of Gov. Jesse Ventura) was honest. Save your breath.

And the reason the Florida recount was a mess was because their laws and their technology of choice were a mess. The reason the Minnesota recount was not is because the laws are clear and the technology works much better.

What does Ventura have to do with election technology? Jesus H. Christ, how many non-sequitirs can you fit in one post?