To: PowerPro
"provisional ballot"
Do you know what this means? It means that it must be validated at some point. We have these in every election. I saw one being issued in 2004 for a person who was new to the neighborhood. Please stop the hysteria.
3 posted on
10/23/2008 9:49:01 AM PDT by
LS
("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
To: LS
According to the article she's not allowing provisional ballots. from the article...
Because to require them to cast a provisional ballot until their information can be verified would be to "disenfranchise" them. Or something.
They're not even hiding it now. They're stealing Ohio.
7 posted on
10/23/2008 9:53:35 AM PDT by
pgkdan
("White folks greed runs a world in need," Jeremiah Wright as quoted by Barack Obama)
To: LS
I agree with you. Ohio had provisional ballots in 2004 and it did not affect the outcome.
8 posted on
10/23/2008 9:54:15 AM PDT by
PhiKapMom
( BOOMER SOONER -- VOTE FOR McCAIN/PALIN2008! LetsGetThisRight.com)
To: LS
I think the point of the article is they aren’t making them cast a provisional ballot. Even if the info doesn’t match they’re letting them vote.
9 posted on
10/23/2008 9:54:39 AM PDT by
Dawn531
To: LS
You’re right. These instances are exactly the reason for provisional ballots.
10 posted on
10/23/2008 9:54:56 AM PDT by
AuntB
( "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell)
To: LS
Did you even bother to read the report?
Ballots cast with mismatched information MUST be allowed.
Ace even jokes about the unfunniness of this situation: “Because to require them to cast a provisional ballot until their information can be verified would be to “disenfranchise” them. Or something.”
In other words, REAL ballots. Unchecked. Courtesy of Brunner.
12 posted on
10/23/2008 10:00:08 AM PDT by
PowerPro
(McCain/Palin FTW)
To: LS
15 posted on
10/23/2008 10:02:06 AM PDT by
CPT Clay
(Drill ANWR, Personal Accounts NOW ,)
To: LS
Please read again - they are NOT going to use provisional - because DOING so would disenfranchise.... er, what he said.
That is what they should do, but the oHIo SOS said NO to them.
Let anyone and everyone vote, no checks what-so-ever.
27 posted on
10/23/2008 10:16:20 AM PDT by
shadowspapa
(You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.)
To: LS
It means that it must be validated at some point. We have these in every election.Yes, we do. I've worked on a district board for many years and if a voter is not in the books or has a different address on record within the district we provide a provisional ballot. The county board then verifies them before the vote is counted.
My concern is that in some of these RAT dominated counties the "verification" will be automatic for RAT voters, regardless of the facts.
41 posted on
10/23/2008 3:20:06 PM PDT by
JimRed
("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
To: LS
The article cited did not mention provisional ballot. It said that only poll workers can challenge the eligibility and that they have not been given the criteria to do so. It doesn’t seem hysteria to say that the election is being stolen if no one has knowledge of which ballots don't meet standards and should have been challenged.
42 posted on
10/23/2008 3:20:36 PM PDT by
nclaurel
(No white flags from America in Iraq--hear that Biden!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson