Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ohio Has Clearer Picture of Ballots Now
Mercury News ^ | 11/16/04 - 2 hrs ago | MARK WILLIAMS -AP

Posted on 11/16/2004 5:50:14 PM PST by Perdogg

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Most of the presidential election provisional ballots rejected so far in Ohio came from people who were not even registered to vote, election officials said after spending nearly two weeks poring over thousands of disputed votes. The vast majority of provisional ballots have been legitimate, however. Of the 11 counties that have completed checking ballots, 81 percent of the ballots are valid, according to a survey Monday by The Associated Press. Unofficial vote totals show President Bush beating Democrat John Kerry by 136,000 votes in Ohio, and Kerry has conceded there are not enough outstanding votes to swing the state his way. It is too early to know whether the provisional ballots have benefited Bush or Kerry because counties first need to determine their validity before conducting the count. Some people said they were holding out hope for a miracle until all votes were counted. Lawyers with Kerry's campaign were in Ohio to check into voters' concerns about ballots, but said they were not trying to challenge the election.

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushwins; bushwinsagain; cheeseandwhine; howtostealanelection; kerrycampaign; loserpays; ohio2004; ohiorecount; traitorslose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 11/16/2004 5:50:14 PM PST by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Now this article states that 81% of the PB have been accepted. (0.81 x 15537) < 136,000.


2 posted on 11/16/2004 5:52:06 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Most of the presidential election provisional ballots rejected so far in Ohio came from people who were not even registered to vote, election officials said after spending nearly two weeks poring over thousands of disputed votes. The vast majority of provisional ballots have been legitimate, however.

Uh....nope. Lost me.

3 posted on 11/16/2004 5:52:49 PM PST by atomicpossum (I am the Cat that walks by himself, and all places are alike to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum
Oh. Now I get it. Ignore my stupididity.
4 posted on 11/16/2004 5:53:26 PM PST by atomicpossum (I am the Cat that walks by himself, and all places are alike to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Im willing to bet a LOT of those provisional ballots being rejected are Kerry votes.


5 posted on 11/16/2004 5:54:29 PM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

It took me a couple of times, too.


6 posted on 11/16/2004 5:55:53 PM PST by Howlin (I love the smell of mandate in the morning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

81% is atypical. The normal range of valid PB's is around 10%-20%. More evidence of Dem fraud?


7 posted on 11/16/2004 5:59:04 PM PST by freebilly ("Body parts everywhere!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

81% of 155337 were accepted. However, that's only 125,823.

125,823 is less than 136,000. Not even in Marin Co, CA can Kerry get 136,000 votes out of 125,823.


8 posted on 11/16/2004 6:00:12 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I wouldn't take away too much from this report. 11 counties out of what, 70 or so total? Most likely these are the smaller counties with few provisional ballots to count and less likely to have bogus names and registrations. I would imagine that the percentage of acceptable provisional ballots will end up somewhere between 65-70%.
9 posted on 11/16/2004 6:00:22 PM PST by CatOwner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; atomicpossum
It took me a couple of times, too.

That makes 3 of us.

Both sentences are grammatically correct, but wording was definitely poorly chosen.

10 posted on 11/16/2004 6:04:42 PM PST by Gabz (Thank a Veteran today............and every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

I understood it the first time I read it.


11 posted on 11/16/2004 6:11:27 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

``Not even in Marin Co, CA can Kerry get 136,000 votes out of 125,823.``

A Marin Co activist judge could. Bet your last dollar on that.


12 posted on 11/16/2004 6:14:21 PM PST by mlbford2 ("Never wrestle with a pig; you can't win, you just get filthy, and the pig loves it...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Some very straightforward questions to try to nail down this cluster frik of a counting process.

I've heard there are 93,000 spoiled ballots to be evaluated. Is this still true? Did spoiled ballots get evaluated and counted in the last election?

If so, what was the breakdown of Bush vs Gore in the spoiled ballots that were deemed countable?

How many provisional ballots are there?

What was the breakdown of Bush vs Gore in the provisionals of 2000?

How many absentee ballots are there? What was the Bush/Gore breakdown of those in 2000?

What other BS categories of ballots hang out in the rafters awaiting "sudden" discovery? Including hospital votes, boxes of ballots somebody "forgot" about, and any other wacko pack of votes this wimpy secretary of state can be led by the nose to count?

Bush has a lead of 136,000, the last I heard. And anybody who relies on statistics to confidently project that it would be impossible for there to be an 80% break for Kerry - just does not understand Democrats and their lying, cheating and stealing ways. Hence - the very straightforward questions to determine if it is mathematically in the bag for Bush.


13 posted on 11/16/2004 6:17:43 PM PST by guitfiddlist (When the 'Rats break out switchblades, it's no time to invoke Robert's Rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I speed read - so sometimes have to reread.

It is poorly written.


14 posted on 11/16/2004 6:20:37 PM PST by Gabz (Thank a Veteran today............and every day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I hope they scrutinize these provisional votes that have been rejected VERY CAREFULLY and determine that the fraudulent or non/registered votes were obtained by the "paid in cocaine" people for Dems...

and thus we have even more ammo to DEMAND that future registrations be done only on town/city property, by municipal employees. No reason why people can't manage to get there in the next 4 years to certify their registrations and show picture ID and proof of residency. Our elections are just too important to allow them to be hijacked by monied interest groups.
15 posted on 11/16/2004 6:20:52 PM PST by bitt (I miss Teresa already.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

LOL


16 posted on 11/16/2004 6:22:00 PM PST by Deetes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bitt
and thus we have even more ammo to DEMAND that future registrations be done only on town/city property, by municipal employees. No reason why people can't manage to get there in the next 4 years to certify their registrations and show picture ID and proof of residency. Our elections are just too important to allow them to be hijacked by monied interest groups.

I'm with you. This whole nonsense about "provisional ballots" has got to go. Geez, you know, if a person can't be bothered with, first, finding out if they are registered to vote where they live, and, second, if they are not, going ahead and getting registered, then why should a special exception be made for them when there are hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters who go through that very same process? All it takes is a lousy phone call to check. I mean, if they really care enough about exercising their voting authority in a legitimate manner, they should not mind getting registered to vote where they live, and appearing at the polls at the right place at the proper time. I know I did it, and I'm not all that special or smart.

Note I am not talking about absentee ballots. I know there are legitimate reasons why a registered voter may not be able to appear at their designated polling place on Election Day. Legitimate absentee ballots should always be included in the totals. But this "provisional" nonsense has to go.

17 posted on 11/16/2004 6:30:10 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I didn't understand it before I understood it.....
18 posted on 11/16/2004 6:30:31 PM PST by clintonh8r (Get Out The Gloat!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; All

19 posted on 11/16/2004 6:35:36 PM PST by AllTheRage (Put yer dukes up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlbford2

Mind you that I didn't say Cook Co, IL.

Had it not been for Cook Co. Il, Bush would have won Il.

I think GOP activist in Il should push for proportional EV distribution.


20 posted on 11/16/2004 6:37:16 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson