What's wrong with provisional voting

On today's Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace interviewed L. Kenneth Blackwell, secretary of State of Ohio, and Eric Holder from the DNC. On the subject of "provisional ballots" and in the context of the recent Federal Court ruling that a provisional ballot must be accepted anywhere in a voter's county Wallace asks Blackwell, "What's wrong with that?"

I was disappointed with Blackwell's response and it seems to me that too many have failed to understand that elections are about more than the United States Presidency: as a federal republic, we're organized around states and these fall elections are about more than the presidency. So, you might be able to capture a voter's presidential vote from anywhere in a county but what about local offices and issues?

Imagine that I'm a resident of City A and show up to vote at a precinct in City B. I cast a provisional ballot recording my vote for president, congressman, county sheriff, mayor, city council and municipal judge and a local tax issue. Later, somehow, the election officials get my provisional ballot over to the correct precinct in City A.

What do the election officials in City A do with my ballot? They can record my vote for president and county sheriff but, if City A is in a different congressional district, what do they do with my vote for the wrong congressional candidate? Or mayor? Or on the tax issue? Don't my votes for candidates and issues that are not on my local precinct ballot simply need to be thrown away? Would anybody advocate having the election official try to discern my intent (like if I voted in favor of taxes in City B they should record a Yes vote on a City A tax question; or if I voted for the Democrat candidate in the 3rd Congressional District they'll take that as a vote for the Democrat in my home 4th District)? Anybody remember pregnant chads?

In other words, by showing up at the wrong precinct, I will have lost my opportunity to vote for my actual congressional candidate and for local candidates and issues.

Bottom line: if the Democrats were genuinely interested in making sure that every vote counts, they'd support efforts to get voters to the right precinct so that all their votes will count instead of focusing on the presidential contest.

Wait until some dem attorneys sue to get provisional ballots counted EVEN THOUGH THE VOTER IS NOT REGISTERED!!! I can hear them now. "These voters took the time and effort to show up and vote, their votes should be counted even though they are not yet registered. If they are ELIGIBLE , they should be allowed to cast a vote." I guarantee this will happen somewhere.

> The votes do not count unless there are enough to make a difference

Is that a process? Figure out how many provisional ballots were cast county wide and determine if the total could effect any of what might be more than 100 ballot contests? Think about it how that might be accomplished. How would you handle statewide elections? Or are you just another of those who focus on the presidential race as if that's the only contest?

> AND if they can be verified to be an eligible voter who has not voted elsewhere

Again, how is that to be accomplished? I'm a resident of City A and voted in cities B, C, and D. The only practical way, IMO, to determine whether, or not, I've voted else where is to get all my ballots to City A where, we hope, the election officials can sort it out. For get about reading the results in your morning paper.

> Of course I mean other than common sense

Please have a talk with that Federal judge in Ohio. That's why I posted here today. Apparently, the judge says that in Ohio, it's completely acceptable to show up at the wrong place.

What would you expect them to do? Instead of doing something to insure the votes of legally registered voters like getting rid of Motor-Voter for starters, this is instead what they passed in congress (besides sending a bunch of tax $ to states to get rid of perfectly good voting systems that worked fine for eons to buy some newer electronic voting system that have no paper trail.) What is wrong with the Republicans besides they are spineless creatures who prefer to be kicked out of office than called a BAD name by a Democrat!

Strong caffeine, huh? We'll all be there soon. Actually I was wondering earlier if the Federal judge has a contrary interpretation of the US Constitution, and if so, I'd expect the RNC to be appealing this lunancy using alot of the arguements enunciated here.

Again, how is that to be accomplished?

Look, did I jump in here and say, "I'm the Elections Expert ?? NO. How the heck should I know. If you are so worried about it, look it up instead of engaging in paranoid whining about it. I'm just asking questions. That's all.

The biggest risk, IMHO, is that provisional voters provide an "excuse" for votes to appear after counting is complete.

Good point. Do you think the Dems will insist on counting ALL votes, regardless of whether they were verified ?? That might be the ultimate goal, seems to me. Otherwise I think it is paranoia on our part. But you do raise a good question.

In the spirit of equal protection, I just don't get how provisional ballots work.

If someone comes in from another precinct, does that itinerant voter get a complete ballot from the visiting precinct, or is a provisional ballot just for the Presidential candidates?

For instance, even if I'm in the right county or town, I may get a ballot that has Presidential & Senatorial candidates in addition to precinct-specific questions such as Congressional candidates, State legislative candidates, aldermanic candidates, local school referendum, fire protection referendum, parks, or forest preserve questions in which I have no right to vote.

What would MY "provisional" ballot look like?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.