Posted on 11/03/2004 1:20:02 PM PST by Robert Drobot
Yesterday my day started at 0600 hours. In my role as 'inspector' of a local polling place, I had five clerks to supervise in setting up the five electronic touch screen units we were going to use, and prepare for a 0700 hours opening of the poll to voters.
Each of the clerks had received a three hour training course from staff of Registrar of Voters office, to acquaint them with their function election day. I formally opened the polling place at 0700 hours.
All went well, as voters were processed - each received a plastic card which would activate the electronic touch screen balloting.
All went well, until one voter asked for a paper ballot. He had already received a plastic card, I told the clerk to issue the card to the next voter, and I provided the voter with a paper ballot.
I told the voter the paper ballot was divided, by design, into two separate forms, each having a the same number sequence. I explained that an error on either form would require the voter to repeat his voting on a new two-form ballot. It seemed to me the paper ballot wasn't voter friendly; that it was designed to be cumbersome at best.
I then told my clerks they would avoid issuing an activated card to a voter who preferred to have a paper ballot, by first determining if the voter wanted to vote electronically or use a paper ballot. One of the clerks said she recalled being told in her training class to not offer the choice to the voter, and only provide a paper ballot if it was requested by the voter.
I didn't recall such an instruction, and thought it best we overcome the situation by clearly learning from the voter their voting preference.
Throughout the day there was an on-going demand for paper ballots. At about 1430 hours I called my supervisor and told her the ballot box we were provided was nearly full. She was puzzled by my request, but told me she had an extra bag, and would get it to me.
About three hours later, she arrived, and promptly went into a tirade when she learned we were offering voters a choice ( paper or plastic ) to do their voting. She publicly reprimanded me; telling me we were told NOT to offer the paper ballot, and directed my clerks to proceed according to her directive.
I argued it wasn't our prerogative to deny voters knowledge about their choice in voting. The exchange got heated - in the presence of voters in the room.
There were a hundred or more voters in line outside the hotel conference room we were using, who were not within ear-shot of her demands and my responses.
Finally, I asked her why we MUST be silent about advising voters of a choice in voting, She wouldn't answer me. Again, I repeated my question. She responded that she would speak with me privately. I told her the voters present had a right to hear her response. She wouldn't respond.
She turned to the clerks and told them to follow her directive of silence.
I told her I would not be a party to this deceit, and given the fact that she was directing the poll staff there was no need for my presence. I resigned my post - colleting my personal items, and left the polling place.
As I made my way past the very long line of waiting voters, I informed them of their right to ask for a paper ballot, if that was their choice.
Later in the evening I heard a representative of the local Registrar of Voters telling the television audience how successful touch-screen voting was among voters in our county - mentioning how we were only one of ten counties in the entire state that employed touch-screen voting.
It was a fraudulent commentary intended to mislead the public about the alleged popularity of touch-screen voting.
Touch-screen voting use was given the appearance of voter approval, when in fact the voter was not reminded of their right to use a paper ballot.
Today, I know my decision to quit was my only recourse. I refused to participate in a process designed to provide a manipulated result about voter preference.
The voters given the choice of voting with a paper ballot were grateful for that opportunity, remarking how they wanted a paper trail that a receipt the paper ballot provided.
Touch-screen voting offered no such acknowledgment of the fact that the voter had voted.
From about 1830 hours until closing, no choice was offered to voters at my polling place. My guess is every voting place in the county took part in the false/manipulated conclusion about voter approval of touch-screen voting.
I don't expect I'll be getting a call from the Registrar next election to manage a polling place.
I'm not their kind of a team player, and I thank God I'm not.
WE NEED THIS IN PHILLY. Note the lower dade totals, even with all the new voters.
I don't get it...what's the difference between the plastic or paper. Wouldn't the votes still be counted?
We spend billions of dollars to make sure that every vote is counted. We spend billions of dollars encouraging people who've never voted in their lives to go to the polls.
We endure comparisons to Hitler, forged documents, propaganda movies, assault and battery of campaign staff and vandalism of headquarters, campaign signs, and buses used to transport voters. Our blood pressure soars after months of biased reporting by the media. We suffer one October surprise after another.
Finally, we vote, and the result is that the outcome is essentially the same.
Did the libs and the media really have to go to all this trouble to make themselves realize that they are in the minority?
Paper you Write on! Plastic flicks a few bits in a machine. For who you don’t know! And there is nothing to look at later. Were as paper leaves a trail. with your mark on it.
Anyone who says computer voting machines cannot be broken into. Take a look at windows
Touch-screen voting offered no such acknowledgment of the fact that the voter had voted.
Ban electronic voting!
I remember reading about this:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2004/10/28/sections/local/local/article_290736
Thursday, October 28, 2004
State: O.C. met paper-ballot test
California's elections chief says no explicit notice must be given of the alternative to electronic voting at polling places.
By MARTIN WISCKOL
The Orange County Register
SANTA ANA – The Orange County elections office has been given the green light by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to keep mum Tuesday about the availability of paper ballots at polling places.
All counties in the state using electronic voting are required by Shelley to also provide paper ballots as an alternative to voters who request them. In a memo Tuesday to these counties, Shelley's office said elections offices "must educate voters" about the availability of paper ballots.
However, Shelley's office said Wednesday that Orange County could proceed with plans to offer no signs or oral offers alerting voters at the polls about the availability of paper ballots. By discussing the issue with the Board of Supervisors and the media, Orange County Registrar of Voters Steve Rodermund had met the education requirement, the office said.
"It sounds like Steve Rodermund has done the minimum that is required," said Tony Miller, special counsel to Shelley. "He has let it be known publicly."
Registrars in Orange and at least three other counties have directed poll workers not to provide information about the availability of a paper ballot unless asked about it, saying they want to encourage use of electronic voting.
(snip)
The routine here in Nevada with touch-screens was as you described - up to the point of getting the plastic card.
There was no option for a paper ballot as we didn't need one. After voting, your entire vote is displayed on the screen with the instruction to press VOTE if it is correct. Then a cash register type of paper receipt is printed out, under glass, and you are prompted to review the printed vote. If you concur, you press VOTE one more time and the "receipt" moves out of sight.
Fast and clean, and there is the equivalent of a paper ballot. I have to wonder why the other states didn't go this route.
I can remember when we voted mechanically and the votes showed up on odometer-type meters under the covers of the machine. No paper trail then - and no complaints about it - it was considered an "improvement". How times change.
Day 1 after electronic voting ... a new era starts.
Electronic voting makes two words come to my mind:
"VOTER FRAUD"
A paper ballot provided the voter with a receipt linking his or her ballot to a perforated numbered receipt clipped from the ballot before it was placed in the ballot box.
There is no way by which an electronic ballot can be linked to a specific voter in California's last Tuesday's voting. If the precinct signature book went missing, there is no way to verify who voted electronically.
If it can't be documented, it didn't happen. That's a truism in accounting, and it's applicable in this instance.
BUT THE POINT OF THIS THERAD IS BEING MISSED!!!
Voters were intentionally denied the opportunity to vote using a paper ballot on Tuesday!!!
"....If they don't ask for it, don't offer it....", was the order of the day. They then falsely declared electronic voting as the process of choice with voters.
A contract to die for, some might say.
Got it.
SOURCE: http://www.conservativeaction.org/resources.php3?nameid=votefraud
How Democrats Steal Elections - Top 10 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud
1. Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election. (New York Post, 12/09/00).
2. Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who's been deceased since 1977 (Miami-Herald, 12/24/00).
3. Mystery Voters. These "voters" cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters. (Miami-Herald 1/09/01)
4. Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters (Drudge Report, 11/19/00).
5. Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they're protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts - including rapists and murderers -- voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats. (Miami-Herald 12/01/00)
6. Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez (Christian Science Monitor, 9/2/97).
7. Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a "smokes-for-votes" campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, 11/14/00).
8. Phantom Voters. These voters don't really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Lousiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them (Behind the Headlines, F.R. Duplantier, 4/27/97).
9. Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned. (NewsMax.com 11/27, 12/22, 11/18, 11/19/00).
10. Absentee ballots. Normally it's assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami's 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court (FL Dept. of Law Enforcement Report, 1/5/98)."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=votefraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=electionfraud
EVERY VOTE COUNTS . . . INCLUDING FRAUDULENT ONES!!
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.