[PassedOut]

Some West Virginia voters report problems with the touch screens there: In six cases, Democratic votes flipped to GOP

Quote

WINFIELD, W.Va. -- Three Putnam County voters say electronic voting machines changed their votes from Democrats to Republicans when they cast early ballots last week.

This is the second West Virginia county where voters have reported this problem. Last week, three voters in Jackson County told The Charleston Gazette their electronic vote for "Barack Obama" kept flipping to "John McCain".

In both counties, Republicans are responsible for overseeing elections. Both county clerks said the problem is isolated.

It seems that some of these voters chose to use the touch screens instead of optical scan ballots. To me, that seems like a very poor decision in the first place.

[matmat]

is this a surprise?

http://en.wikipedia....ction_Solutions

[Gerben42]

So Springfield is in West Virginia?

[ASkolnick]

Actually, yes. That is one of the inside jokes in the cartoon "The Simpsons" who are from springfield but they never say from where. The reason is, there is a Springfield in all 50 states of the United States.

[TimG]

ASkolnick, on Oct 21 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

The reason is, there is a Springfield in all 50 states of the United States.

I believe the following states are Springfield deficient:

Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

[luke warm]

other early voting problems

from the WSJ

from kansas city

[MickyB]

luke warm, on Oct 21 2008, 11:08 PM, said:

other early voting problems

from the WSJ

from kansas city

By "early", you mean two years ago

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Oct 21 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

other early voting problems

from the WSJ

from kansas city

Read both articles, but there was no mention of early voting problems in either.

It's true that (with ACORN's help), authorities have this year identified some fraudulent registrations turned in by people hired to register voters. I don't think anyone has suggested that any of those fraudulent registrations -- not even Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Santa Claus -- showed up to vote.

I'm told that John McCain actually gave the keynote speech at ACORN's 2006 convention and had nice things to say about the hard work and patriotism of the organization.

[Lobowolf]

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Oct 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

I can't speak for other states (although I presume procedures are mostly similar), but I can speak as an election official in Michigan: Mail-in ballots are handed only to properly registered voters (with verification by picture ID). The ballots received in the mail need a correct signature - verified by workers from both parties - before they are entered into the optical scan reader and counted. The ballot control procedures to stop duplicate voting, etc., are exactly the same as for voters who show up in person on election day.

So I think that the concerns you have are completely unwarranted.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Oct 21 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

I can't speak for other states (although I presume procedures are mostly similar), but I can speak as an election official in Michigan: Mail-in ballots are handed only to properly registered voters (with verification by picture ID). The ballots received in the mail need a correct signature - verified by workers from both parties - before they are entered into the optical scan reader and counted. The ballot control procedures to stop duplicate voting, etc., are exactly the same as for voters who show up in person on election day.

So I think that the concerns you have are completely unwarranted.

Can you please tell us more about how mail in ballots are counted.
For example when do they start the process of counting the ballots, the day of the election, before, after?
How long does the process take? In other words...same day, days, weeks, longer?
When is the last day that the ballot can be accepted by mail, same day as election or other?

It sounds like in Michigan and other places you must go someplace in person and get the mail in ballot? What happens if you do not have a photo id? No mail in ballot is handed out?

[han]

MickyB, on Oct 21 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 21 2008, 11:08 PM, said:

other early voting problems

from the WSJ

from kansas city

By "early", you mean two years ago

Hard to argue with that.

[cherdano]

Lobowolf, on Oct 21 2008, 05:14 PM, said:

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

False registrations can be detected. Hence, if someone actually tried to falsely register and vote, there would also be a good chance of it being detected.
Is there a single example of someone having been indicted for committing voter fraud after submitting a false voter registration via ACORN?

Anyway, McCain's claim of the "biggest election fraud in history" about to be committed is very strange. Does he want to start pushing excuses for his loss already, or does he really live in such a bubble where he would believe that?

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Oct 21 2008, 06:52 PM, said:

Can you please tell us more about how mail in ballots are counted.
For example when do they start the process of counting the ballots, the day of the election, before, after?
How long does the process take?  In other words...same day, days, weeks, longer?
When is the last day that the ballot can be accepted by mail, same day as election or other?

It sounds like in Michigan and other places you must go someplace in person and get the mail in ballot? What happens if you do not have a photo id? No mail in ballot is handed out?

Can you please tell us more about how mail in ballots are counted.

Each ballot has a unique ballot number (on a detachable stub), and polling procedures account for each ballot given to each voter. Polling procedures also make sure that each registered voter votes only once.

For example when do they start the process of counting the ballots, the day of the election, before, after?

On election day in Michigan.

How long does the process take? In other words...same day, days, weeks, longer? When is the last day that the ballot can be accepted by mail, same day as election or other?

The mail-in ballots can be received up to and including the election day. Typically some do arrive in the mail on election day.

It sounds like in Michigan and other places you must go someplace in person and get the mail in ballot? What happens if you do not have a photo id? No mail in ballot is handed out?

Yes, you don't get a mail-in ballot with no photo ID. Voting in person on election day, you also need a photo ID, but there is a provision for voters who show up without one: An affidavit is completed and a provisional ballot cast. Like all provisional ballots, these are not tallied by the optical scanner on election day. However, valid provisional ballots will be added to the totals later whenever the results might be affected.

[barmar]

The only place I've ever voted is Arlington, MA, where I've lived for 25 years. I've always been amazed at how lax it is here; I have no idea if it's just our town, or typical in the state.

When you show up at the precinct, they ask you your address, and they flip to that address in a big computer printout. Then they ask your name, and draw a line through that name on the printout. They give you a ballot, you fill it out, and then you go to another table where you tell them your address and name, they cross it out again, and you put the ballot into the reader.

There's absolutely no identity checking. If you can read upside down, it would be easy to pick the address of an apartment building, then when they flip to that page you can easily find a name that isn't crossed out and give it as your own. Someone could easily go from precinct to precinct, voting like this.

It seems like a legacy from the days of small towns, where everyone knew their neighbors. In those days, there would be a good chance that the election official would notice that you're not who you claimed to be.

[TimG]

The process here in Maine (the only state I've ever voted in, but I have voted in a number of precincts and even worked at one polling place) is similar to what Barry experiences in Massachusetts. I've never been asked for an ID on election day. Here, they ask our name first and then confirm our address once they have found our name. There is no second name checking after you've filled out the ballot.

The one time I worked as a polling place, we opened and counted absentee ballots after the polls closed. I don't remember what the safeguard was to prevent someone form voting absentee and in person, but there was something. I'm sort of curious about how obtaining one works and might get one for this election.

[PassedOut]

barmar, on Oct 21 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

The only place I've ever voted is Arlington, MA, where I've lived for 25 years.  I've always been amazed at how lax it is here; I have no idea if it's just our town, or typical in the state.

When you show up at the precinct, they ask you your address, and they flip to that address in a big computer printout.  Then they ask your name, and draw a line through that name on the printout.  They give you a ballot, you fill it out, and then you go to another table where you tell them your address and name, they cross it out again, and you put the ballot into the reader.

There's absolutely no identity checking.  If you can read upside down, it would be easy to pick the address of an apartment building, then when they flip to that page you can easily find a name that isn't crossed out and give it as your own.  Someone could easily go from precinct to precinct, voting like this.

It seems like a legacy from the days of small towns, where everyone knew their neighbors.  In those days, there would be a good chance that the election official would notice that you're not who you claimed to be.

Thanks for the description. I had no idea things were so different outside of Michigan.

Here each voter actually fills in and signs an application to vote. The application includes birthdate and address. The signature, birthdate, and address are checked against the registration records before the voter gets a ballot. The poll worker records the fact that the voter got the ballot. If a ballot is spoiled, the spoiled ballot must be returned to get a replacement. End-of-day reconciliation procedures account for every ballot issued and the numbers must match the counter read by the optical scanner.

When we lived in Atlanta (we moved away ten years ago) I wasn't an election official, but I remember that we didn't have to show picture IDs. The poll workers were pretty careful to find a voter's name and address on the register before handing out a ballot, but I suppose fraud would have been theoretically possible on a very minor scale.

I had thought that things had tightened up a bit all over after the 2000 election debacle, but I guess not. I guess looseness or tightness in election procedures is a states-rights issue for many.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Oct 22 2008, 09:16 AM, said:

barmar, on Oct 21 2008, 11:41 PM, said:

The only place I've ever voted is Arlington, MA, where I've lived for 25 years.  I've always been amazed at how lax it is here; I have no idea if it's just our town, or typical in the state.

When you show up at the precinct, they ask you your address, and they flip to that address in a big computer printout.  Then they ask your name, and draw a line through that name on the printout.  They give you a ballot, you fill it out, and then you go to another table where you tell them your address and name, they cross it out again, and you put the ballot into the reader.

There's absolutely no identity checking.  If you can read upside down, it would be easy to pick the address of an apartment building, then when they flip to that page you can easily find a name that isn't crossed out and give it as your own.  Someone could easily go from precinct to precinct, voting like this.

It seems like a legacy from the days of small towns, where everyone knew their neighbors.  In those days, there would be a good chance that the election official would notice that you're not who you claimed to be.

Thanks for the description. I had no idea things were so different outside of Michigan.

Here each voter actually fills and signs an to application vote. The application includes birthdate and address. The signature, birthdate, and address are checked against the registration records before the voter gets a ballot. The poll worker records the fact that the voter got the ballot. If a ballot is spoiled, the spoiled ballot must be returned to get a replacement. End-of-day reconciliation procedures account for every ballot issued and the numbers must match the counter read by the optical scanner.

When we lived in Atlanta (we moved away ten years ago) I wasn't an election official, but I remember that we didn't have to show picture IDs. The poll workers were pretty careful to find a voter's name and address on the register before handing out a ballot, but I suppose fraud would have been theoretically possible on a very minor scale.

I had thought that things had tightened up a bit all over after the 2000 election debacle, but I guess not. I guess looseness or tightness in election procedures is a states-rights issue for many.

I don't think there's any ID checking for mail-in ballots here (California).

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Oct 21 2008, 06:46 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 21 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Re: Acorn, showing up to vote is less of an issue than getting mail-in ballots, particularly in the cases of the multiply-registered and underaged voters.

I can't speak for other states (although I presume procedures are mostly similar), but I can speak as an election official in Michigan: Mail-in ballots are handed only to properly registered voters (with verification by picture ID). The ballots received in the mail need a correct signature - verified by workers from both parties - before they are entered into the optical scan reader and counted. The ballot control procedures to stop duplicate voting, etc., are exactly the same as for voters who show up in person on election day.

So I think that the concerns you have are completely unwarranted.

I'm curious between this and your post in the Rolling Stone thread; do you think voters should have to show I.D.?

[Al_U_Card]

"Individual" voter problems are not the issue. One vote counts for little but when you can make a change, institute a procedure or nullify a qualification in broad terms, you can target and hit a large group of "potential" voters. Their potential being to vote against you. A 2 for 1 deal in plurality votes.