Why does it seem that people go out of their way to minimize the value of their excerpts?
They give us 300 words — we should use them to get across the point of the article.
Anyway, the jist of the article is that the democrats told the 80-year-old to write something damaging, so she did.
But if you read the entire article, what you find is that this democrat is confused as to why “nothing” came up in canvasssing about a “15,000-vote” error.
Of course, the reason nothing came up in canvassing is because there was never a 15,000-vote error in the vote tabulation. There were in fact SOME errors in vote reporting, with a couple hundred votes switching back and forth, or being added or subtracted, as they canvassed the precincts comparing the reported totals against a re-evaluation of the actual data.
But obviously, when they looked at the city numbers, the 15,000 votes they found matched the 15,000 votes that were REPORTED.
Because the problem with that city wasn’t an ERROR in the report, it was a failure to transmit the report. The City didn’t mistakenly report 0 votes, they correctly reported the votes, but someone forgot to send them on. That’s not an “error” that a canvassing board corrects, because the canvassing board is checking individual results against what was reported.
It is pretty much assumed that as the canvassing board completes each area, they then officially send the numbers. If absolutely NO numbers had been reported before canvassing started, there would still be NO canvassing errors related to the lack of reporting — just good numbers being reported from canvassing.
In my opinion, that might be a better way to do things in places where they are so incompetent they can’t seem to report things correctly.
It’s not a big deal in more modern places where they have figured out how to do fancy cutting and pasting.
Sorry Charles but Righthaven is suing private posters on websites that have already settled with them. I’m not taking any chances.