Posted on 12/23/2004 10:46:57 PM PST by alessandrofiaschi
Time for freepers in pajamas to get to work. Does anyone know how often someone lost votes in a manual recount anywhere, anytime ? If this is the first ever, then we might have a news story.
Voter intent is irrelevant unless the voter intended to mark the ballot in the manner prescribed by law. If the oval was circled, the voter clearly intended to do something other than what the law required, and so the ballot should be rejected.
Nonsense. If the oval were filled in but the voter went a little outside the line, one could reasonably posit that the voter was trying to fill in the oval precisely but lacked the coordination to do so. in this case, the voter clearly intended to mark the ballot in a manner other than the legally-prescribed one. Consequently, the ballot is void.
There have been elections in Illinois which turned upon whether a box with a check box in it (instead of an "X") counts as a vote. It does not. The voter's preferred candidate may be clear, but if the voter doesn't cast the vote properly it doesn't count.
"Nonsense. If the oval were filled in but the voter went a little outside the line, one could reasonably posit that the voter was trying to fill in the oval precisely but lacked the coordination to do so. in this case, the voter clearly intended to mark the ballot in a manner other than the legally-prescribed one. Consequently, the ballot is void."
You are sentencing a whole bunch of old people to not having their votes count. They can't see the little circles. I'm not referring to a few. I'm referring to large numbers. When I teach elderhostel, about half of the seniors cannot pick buttons and links out on a computer screen. They need BIG views with high contrast.
Personally, I don't think a technicality should rule out a vote by a qualified voter who made the vote clear. As long as the rules are the same for everybody, it's fair.
If it's not clear, it shouldn't be counted. If it is clear, count it. (IMHO)
Assuming data accurate - Not quite fraud? OK - I'll buy that. But the cost is that whoever claimed that was a vote needs to hand in their drivers license. They are either blind or corrupt. Jail or blind.
Quite frankly, given that this is an attempted coup, hanging would not be innappropriate. The purpetrators of the Washington State fraud are anti-Democratic (note - the Democratic party is not Democratic) operatives who are destroying the foundation of the country. Stretching out a rope a bit at their expense would be a good thing.
Whoever called this a vote should be tarred and feathered at the least.
Diva's Husband
AMAZING ! FRAUD! FRAUD!! FRAUD!!!
THEY ARE STEALING THE ELECTION IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.
I AM OUTRAGED!! I AM ANGRY!!
The solution to that problem is not to throw out required marking standards for ballots, but rather to provide equipment that anyone can use to mark ballots properly (e.g. go into specian "assisted" booth, insert ballot, punch buttons in response to either large on-screen messages or headphone-delivered audio prompts, and then have the machine mark the choices on the ballot).
To rule that ballots can be marked in any way other than the indicated method and still count is to render machine counts worthless and turn the election into a free-for-all.
Actually, various methods are used in PA. Many counties in PA use optical scanners, so we could end up with either hanging chads or this...or even worse, electronic hacking without a paper trail.
What a mess it is to try to maintain a republic with such an unethical and lawless populace.
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.