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

To: All

More on verification:
from PI article, "The canvassing board voted 2-1 to move forward with recanvassing the 573 ballots. "
"Canvassing" IS the process of verification.

Further:
"The absentee ballots were not counted originally because the voters' signatures had not been scanned into the county's computer system. Election workers should have checked the paper files, but instead the ballots were mistakenly rejected. The error was discovered only after Phillips saw his name on a list of rejected absentee ballots and notified Logan. "The facts are pretty clear there was a discrepancy in the canvassing of these ballots," Logan said. "There is a record that shows these are validly registered voters who did nothing wrong."

I'm just not sure what's wrong with this.


98 posted on 12/16/2004 12:54:27 PM PST by spudpuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies ]


To: spudpuppy

Well, maybe because this is a recount, not a recanvassing, but what is happening is a recanvassing...? Is that right or wrong?

Now, what about military absentee ballots that were mailed overseas and received late? Have those ballots been counted, or were they "mistakenly" rejected? If so, will they be recanvassed as well?

So many questions...


100 posted on 12/16/2004 12:57:13 PM PST by Chad Fairbanks (Go Ahead. Mace just makes me even more excited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

To: spudpuppy

"The absentee ballots were not counted originally because the voters' signatures had not been scanned into the county's computer system. Election workers should have checked the paper files, but instead the ballots were mistakenly rejected. The error was discovered only after Phillips saw his name on a list of rejected absentee ballots and notified Logan. "The facts are pretty clear there was a discrepancy in the canvassing of these ballots," Logan said. "There is a record that shows these are validly registered voters who did nothing wrong."

I'm just not sure what's wrong with this.

the only thing that is wrong with this is that there is no mention if the ballots were secure after they were rejected. If they were secure, why did the newspaper get a list of names and addresses of all of the people who's ballots were rejected? Did they have direct access to the ballots after they were canvassed or was a list made as they were being canvassed? Chain of custody isn't even addressed and I think that is very important when dealing with ballots 7 weeks after an election.

127 posted on 12/16/2004 1:34:57 PM PST by Rad_J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies ]

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