Voter Problems In CA

[Stiganator]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/lada...bble-toil-and-trouble/

They claim that 750,000 votes went uncounted. What percentage of CA would that be if it were 750,000 for Obama?

 

[Fern]

This is not Florida 2000, it's Los Angeles 2008,? L.A. City Councilman Eric Garcetti told the L.A. Weekly. Garcetti, a prominent Barak Obama supporter, acknowledged that the bubble snafu could leave a bitter aftertaste in the mouths of voters who will claim that most Nonpartisan cross-over votes would have gone to their candidate.

Whoaa.

That "gimmick" is a lot worse than the hanging chad thingy, IMO.

Fern

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

N/M misread

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Stiganator
http://blogs.laweekly.com/lada...bble-toil-and-trouble/

They claim that 750,000 votes went uncounted. What percentage of CA would that be if it were 750,000 for Obama?

So all 776,000 people who received the cross over ballots didn't read the instructions? I highly doubt that.

If so... *EPIC FAIL* on the part of the voters. But like I said, there is no way that all 776,000 non-partisan ballots failed to be counted.

 

[Slick5150]

The bigger issue is, why would they make it more complicated than it needs to be? If the Obama box is checked, then take a guess that they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary. If Huckabee is checked, Republican.

Its amazing the number of ways America can find to make our system of voting as stupid and as unreliable as possible.

 

[StageLeft]

Its amazing the number of ways America can find to make our system of voting as stupid and as unreliable as possible.

QFT, almost sig-worthy. It's a fvcking embarrassment.

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Its amazing the number of ways America can find to make our system of voting as stupid and as unreliable as possible.

To re-phrase:

"Its amazing the number of ways America can find to make our system of just about a lot of things in America as stupid and as unreliable as possible."

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
The bigger issue is, why would they make it more complicated than it needs to be? If the Obama box is checked, then take a guess that they wanted to vote in the Democratic primary. If Huckabee is checked, Republican.

Its amazing the number of ways America can find to make our system of voting as stupid and as unreliable as possible.

Exactly, almost.

As you point out the info they wished to capture with the "extra bubble" is reduntant.

Anytime you add extra steps to paperwork, you're gonna increase the error rate.

I'd like to know if this is teh first time this extra bubble was required. I'm sure plenty of voters didn't bother to read the instructions because they felt they didn't need to (having already been familiar with the process from prior years voting).

By noon election day, CC.org's worst fears were realized as voters began complaining that poll workers hadn't pointed out the extra bubble. The registrar's office has tried to get word out to its workers about the issue but at this point it's impossible to know how many votes have been lost.

The voters weren't the only ones confused/unaware. The "trained" pollworkers wren't aware of it either.

AND

It will be impossible to conduct a recount of the cross-over ballots because voters were handed both Nonpartisan and Democratic ballots and there are cases where the bubble numbers for candidates from different parties overlap. While cross-over votes inked on Democratic ballots should be okay, Jacobs says most poll workers were instructed to issue Nonpartisan ballots to crossovers because the registrar's office wants to keep a statistical record of the number of Nonpartisan voters crossing over

If true, a complete cluster fvck.

Their desired statistical data would be erroneous even if all cross-over voters complied with the new "bubble".

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

You would think that it would be simple enough to guess that if someone voted for Obama they wanted to vote Democratic, and Huckabee Republican. Unfortunately you would be wrong. There are a number of famous political science studies (Phillip Converse in particular) that have in effect found out that the average voter literally knows shit about who and what they are voting for. In fact, they know less then shit. I guarantee you there is a LARGE percentage of voters out there who have no idea if Obama is a Democrat or a Republican, same with Huckabee. (although perhaps less in a primary, but then again maybe not this well attended primary) What's really funny is that if they found out that they were incorrect and the person was of the opposite party they liked better (independant or no) it is very likely that they would vote for someone else.

I know it sounds stupid, but it's true. People really are that dumb. Now I know that the common response to this is that they shouldn't be voting then, but of course then you have the equally large problem of who is supposed to decide who is too dumb to vote.

 

[jonks]

This is california. "Like, oh my god, Huckabee! That's such a cute name! Ugh, Hillary? That's like my grandma's name, as if! Mitt? MITT? John McCain! He's that guy from Die Hard! Totally getting my vote!"

"It's like someone took America by the East Coast and shook it, and all the normal girls managed to hang on." - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You would think that it would be simple enough to guess that if someone voted for Obama they wanted to vote Democratic, and Huckabee Republican. Unfortunately you would be wrong. There are a number of famous political science studies (Phillip Converse in particular) that have in effect found out that the average voter literally knows shit about who and what they are voting for. In fact, they know less then shit. I guarantee you there is a LARGE percentage of voters out there who have no idea if Obama is a Democrat or a Republican, same with Huckabee. (although perhaps less in a primary, but then again maybe not this well attended primary) What's really funny is that if they found out that they were incorrect and the person was of the opposite party they liked better (independant or no) it is very likely that they would vote for someone else.

I know it sounds stupid, but it's true. People really are that dumb. Now I know that the common response to this is that they shouldn't be voting then, but of course then you have the equally large problem of who is supposed to decide who is too dumb to vote.

I don't see how that's relevant.

The point is the people in the state election office who wanted data on which party the indies cross to should know which candidate is from which party and extrapolate that data easily. Of course, since they handed Dem ballots to indies, they blew the whole thing anyway. Who's dumber? Hint: The person/party who is receiving a salary and should have trained their staff better, not to mention designing a better way to capture the desired data.

Since it's an open primary, you cast your ballot for the candidate you choose. Knowing which party they are in doesn't matter.

BTW: Not disagreeing with your assertion that many voters may not know the party etc.

I'll be looking anxiously to see if this story has any merit.

It's been widely acknowleged that the Clinton machine controls the Dem party in CA.

Fern

 

[quikah]

That is weird. I am in Santa Clara county, and they just gave me a regular Dem ballot when I asked for one.