Journal MarkusQ's Journal: Ohio recount rigging case goes to court 224
The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting that the trial of the three election workers accused of rigging the 2004 presidential election recount in Cuyahoga County is finally underway. As you may recall, this was the case where poll workers "randomly" selected the precincts to recount by first eliminating from consideration precincts where the number of ballots handed out on Election Day failed to match the number of ballots cast and, then opening the ballot boxes in private and pre-counting until they found cases which would match up.
What is interesting here is that they have already admitted doing this and that it was clearly counter to the letter and the spirit of the law, but still insist it wasn't really wrong, presumably since they only did it to avoid having to go to the bother of a full recount as required by law.
Away with them (Score:5, Insightful)
Counting twice, but fewer boxes (Score:5, Informative)
The law says they have to manually recount a randomly selected 3%, and if that comes out close enough they can do the rest of the recount by running it through the machine again. Otherwise they would have had to manually recount them all.
So they did a quick search for precincts that might match (e.g., skip the ones where the total number of votes was way off or that otherwise looked fishy), counted some of them until the had 3% that would pass muster, and that became their "random sample" for the public recount.
What is amazing is that they (&, IIRC, the voting machine tech that helped them) admitted this to the people doing the recount.
--MarkusQ
The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you RTFA?
Prosecutors do not allege vote fraud or that the mishandling of the recount affected the outcome of the presidential election.
That's why it's not a big deal. But it doesn't stop you or the editors from making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sure, no big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, sure, just like it's no big deal if somebody opens fire in a shopping mall, so long as they don't hit anybody. Or like the way it's OK to swipe people's credit cards, as long as you don't buy anything with them.
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:2)
The potential problems caused by a thorough investigation into the ramifications of our broken election system might be a bit more than the prosecution wants to take on. That doesn't mean the election system isn't seriously flawed. My OP point was that we need to take off the blinders and deal with the flaws, a
Re: (Score:2)
The terrorists WANT us to get mired in this recount morass!
(If you can't detect satire, never mind.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hopeful that it doesn't stop just there and that this will lead to some much larger indictments and convictions.
Re:The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting... (Score:5, Informative)
That's why it's not a big deal. But it doesn't stop you or the editors from making a mountain out of a molehill.
Did you RTFA? They said they didn't think it would change the out come of the election, because they weren't able to do a full recount. The recount they did was rigged. They said they were only following standard procedure. If that's not going to effect the outcome I don't know what is. The flawed recount still gave Kerry more votes. If this was done in every county in Ohio it could have swung the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you did not RTFA. A full machine recount was done according to the article. The worke
Re:The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are prosecuting these people and probably feel that any allegations about changes to the election result would only confuse the issue. Furthermore, they probably don't have admissable evidence to support such an allegation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ABC News [go.com] also has the story, along with a picture of the defendents. I can't put my finger on it, but they don't appear to be stereotypical Bush operatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I fixed that for you.
Nixon said it best (Score:2)
"Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." [landmarkcases.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No fewer people voted many, many, more times, over the entire season. It hardly translates into a good match against a real political poll.
Re: (Score:3)
Commentator: One votes, 16,387 votes cast. A bit of anomaly, don't you think?
Blackadder: Not at all. The number of votes I cast reflects the strength of my belief in the candidate. I believe in him very strongly.
Re:The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but for American Idol, you can vote multiple times. In elections, you can only do that in Chicago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please wake me up when it becomes sentient
In 2007 IdolNet beomes self aware and launches the attack that will end 3 billion lives [worldofwarcraft.com] in an instant of fire
2 Months is a Long Time (Score:5, Interesting)
Uhhh (Score:5, Funny)
Laziness is a great excuse for election fraud.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypothetical: We find out that John Kerry actually won Ohio... so BushCo. gets evicted and Kerry gets to be President for two weeks before Hillary gets sworn in.
What does he do?
(think of this as a very unscientific poll)
Re: (Score:2)
What does he do?
He pays Madonna a million bucks to sit on his...
Oh wait! Wrong poll question.
Re: (Score:2)
Lap??? Face??? Chihuahua???? What?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the irony (Score:2)
Oh, the irony. My remarks about Kerry were not intended as a troll.
It was a botched attempt at a joke.
**sigh** I suppose I deserve it.
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. But my point (which I made badly) was that in 2004 we were given the choice between an idiot who wouldn't change his mind even when he was obviously wrong, and one that was willing to change his even when he was obviously right.
**sigh**
I suppo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not on the national level. Regardless of what one believes happened in the local elections, George W. Bush is the legitimate President of the United States, because there has been no allegations that the votes from the electoral college were coerced or otherwise counted incorrectly.
Locally, what can happen varies from state to state. Some states do not require their electors to vote according to the popular vote; they can break ranks. (Ind
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise, the only excuse is maliciousness...
And admitting to that would really aggravate the charges against them
A Republican in Cuyahoga County?? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's just the opposite. Lazy folks don't do preparation work and end up with even MORE work later. No, these folks were VERY dilligent VERY early making darn sure that they could eliminate any scent of voting irregularities.
A lazy Republican operative would have let someone choose precincts at random, counted just the three and then found out that they then had to recount every single ballot.
That's what started all this. (Score:2)
You aren't the only one to have that reaction. The fact that such a large proportion of them apparently voted for Bush started some people [jqjacobs.net] wondering if the votes had been counted correctly.
Thus the 3rd party call for a recount, which the poll workers botched.
It's the very fact that the county is so heavily Democratic that got people wondering in the first place.
--MarkusQ
As a local, I gotta tell you (Score:2)
No offense, but I find it hilarious that a user named "Black-Man" is telling us what it's like in Cuyahoga Falls. If you're local, you know that it's usualy called Caucasian Falls for a reason.
For the rest of the Slashdot crowd, the Falls is still one of those places where you can get a ticket for driving while black. Or poor. I got pulled over once for simply having a crappy car. The cops there work very hard to keep "that element" out of their neighborhood, if you know what I mean.
Ohio can be a pr
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Assuming that your verbal skills and personal hygiene are of a piece with your writing ability and unimaginative vulgarity, would you do us right-wingers a favor? Please do this in every election for the rest of your life. Make sure everybody around you
oblig (Score:4, Funny)
-- Homer Simpson
I, for one... (Score:4, Funny)
Obsession with Ohio (Score:4, Insightful)
While it's good to scrutinize problems with our electoral system, I think there's too much of an obsession with Ohio. It wasn't the narrowest race, nor was it the one with the most irregularities, but it's where all the hindsight gets focused. It's easy to see why... Ohio was the state that came closest to swinging the election the other way, and thus becomes the center of all the "OMG Bush stoled teh election AGAIN!" rhetoric. However, this emphasis exclusively on Ohio (and Florida in the previous election) overlooks the issues everywhere else. It effectively says, who cares if there were problems in Michigan (or wherever), Kerry won that state so let's not worry about the election there. Electoral problems should be scrutinized and fixed based on their severity and merits, not how well they play into some "what if the other guy had won?" scenario.
Re:Obsession with Ohio (Score:4, Interesting)
Ohio was the state that the chairman of Diebold said would be delivered to the president.
Re:Obsession with Ohio (Score:5, Informative)
I was skeptical, so I did a web search. This Boing Boing post [boingboing.net] has links to coverage from CNN and CBS. I guess he really said it.
Here's the exact quote (from Wally O'Dell, Diebold CEO and former Republican fundraiser):
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't the narrowest race, nor was it the one with the most irregularities
Would you care to elaborate on that? It sounds as if egregious fraud may have occured - thus, the trial.
Electoral problems should be scrutinized and fixed based on their severity and merits, not how well they play into some "what if the other guy had won?" scenario.
Pardon me, but I voted for Kerry because I wanted to see him win. If these people had a hand in throwing the election, I want them in jail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yea, and I voted for Badnarik because he was the only candidate left after eliminating all the obvious douchebags on the ballot. That doesn't mean I'd be OK with people committing election fraud if it had favored him - the whole concept of voting becomes utterly worthless (even more than it already is) if people can mess with the votes and get away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for Kerrey because he was the only candidate that I think could do a passable job. And that includes Badnarik.
I never understood why so many slashdotters supported a man so unsuitable for the job as Badnarik.
Re: (Score:2)
It's his platform. Since he had no chance of actually winning, it doesn't matter how well he would do the job. If enough people vote for any third party candidate, maybe the major parties will embrace more of that candidate's platform in the next election.
Plus, it feels really good to not vote for the lesser of two evils.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No real political experience, no real management experience, no college degree (and I'm not saying a candidate n
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I can elaborate on that.
On the first claim, that other races were narrower, I refer you to Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.
As for the most irregularities, there were, sadly, problems all over the country. Long lines in urban areas, lost absentee ballots, a nasty tire-slashing incident perpetrated by workers for one of the campaigns, voting machine problems, provisional ballots that were tossed that should have been counted, ones that should have been tossed but were counted (I recal
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Well I'm glad we've fixed erectile dysfunction. Now maybe we can work on curing cancer."
"Maybe we should fix the problems in our own country before we start trying to fix the problems in other countries."
"How can we devote tax dollars to X when Y is still going on all over the country?"
Of course, Ohio is important here for a number of reasons. These people admitted to failing to ra
I 100% agree (Score:3, Informative)
I agree 100%. As I have said many times, I wouldn't be all that interested in having Kerry as President, though I don't like Bush either. But if we're going to have an election between two worthless shills I'd still insist on having an honest election between them.
Further, we should be (and, thankfully, some of us are) looking at the recent
Re: (Score:2)
Foley wasn't election rigging, but the way Rahm Emmanuel dealt with it was (in my opinion at least). Different factions put different spin on it, but people from all across the political spectrum from the wing-nut right to the loony left agree on the basic outline:
Re: (Score:2)
But surely the effect on the outcome of the election is the best measure of "severity". If I wave a pointed stick around in a crowded room and kill someone, that is more severe than someone firing an RPG into an empty field.
Both acts, mind you, are serious crimes, but of two crimes commited with the same intent, the one that has the worst outcome
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key aspect you're missing is that we know Ohio was the swing state in hindsight. Until the ballots were counted, it was unknown (aside from statistical guesswork) where fraud could be most influencial. The corrected analogy is one person waving a pointed stick in the dark, while
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree or disagree. Now for one thing, there's no doubt in my mind, as an Ohioan, that on the day of the 04 election, the state swung more in favor of Bush than Kerry.
In that regard, it's easy to say that there is too much obsession. On the other hand, a lot of the focus remains because there is always the ability for Ohio to create even closer election results (whereas Florida has become less unstable in that regard.)
Ohio's election system, arguably
OK (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would be extremely retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Treason? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care if you're running for dog catcher... the democratic process should be defended with the most uncompromising principles possible, should it not?
Agreed ... (Score:2)
To a Democratic society, elections are our most sacred ritual. Desecrating elections should be one of our highest crimes. We should treat those who murder democracy at least as harshly as those who murder people. I'd say a proof solid election fraud case should be a 10-20 years in prison. A further insult would be putting these individuals' jailhouse photos on the election training materials so that everyone KNOWS what happens to those who subvert democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems very possible that in the minds of those committing vote fraud, their actions are patriotic. Republicans are Republicans and Democrats are Democrats because each believes their party has the best plan for America.
Let's imagine a (hopefully) rather extreme example. It's 2016 and America has suffered several tragic terror attacks, including one just a few months before the election. The Republicans play off the natural xenophobia the attacks have developed by announcing a plan to reject at the bord
Re:Treason? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, many states give quite a bit of power in determining how elections are run to a Secretary of State that is elected based on party affiliation, which undermines the system significantly. Combining that with the deployment of voting systems (DRE's) that are designed to be impossible to audit, it's hard to have faith in the integrity of the election process, because you have good reasons not to trust the people adminstering the process, and no way to verify the results independently.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
We do. Every lever of election helper in Ohio, from the pollworker ($100 for election day) to the Director of the county board of elections to the Secretary of State ($125k per year) is paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had already posted this, so if it shows up twice don't shoot me
Those are DEMOCRATS on trial (Score:3, Informative)
Plus, it's a heavily Democratic county.
Fault Tolerant System (Score:2)
Any system that pretends that there is no voting fraud, and depends on there being no voter f
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
When the party in power in the state or county wins it is the will of the people.
When the other party wins, it was stolen.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
When the party you affiliate yourself with wins, it is the will of the people.
When the other party wins, it was stolen.
Ahhhh, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
The American Way. Our values do persist in these troubled times! Hurrah!
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
> will of the people.
I don't think there's any question about the outcome in this case. From TFA:
# Candidates for president from the Green and Libertarian parties requested
# the Ohio recount. State laws and regulations specify how a recount works.
In other words, the Democrats, who lost by a narrow margin, did not request the recount. If there'd been any real question about the outcome, they would have done so. So that's not what's at stake.
What *is* at stake is that we CANNOT have election officials violating election laws and getting away with it. They acted to avoid a painful and expensive recount process that would not change anything, but they did not have the authority to do that, and we cannot let them off with a stern lecture and a slap on the wrist, because if we do, it'll happen again, and again, and again, and at some point it'll happen when it matters. I hope the courts rake them over the coals but *good*. Make an example out of them: we will not tolerate election law violations.
The 2004 election isn't what's at stake here. The 2008 and 2012 and 2016 elections, and every one that follows, are what's at stake.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately, you want a system where true recounts aren't needed (but would be guaranteed, in full, if called for). This requires a system that is essentially non-partisan. There would be no quango (govt. appointee) in charge of running the elections or counting the votes. The separation of powers
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing too - Rossi actually quoted as saying Alcohol and Cigarette taxes hurt families. (don't think too hard about that one).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Good thing too - Rossi actually quoted as saying Alcohol and Cigarette taxes hurt families. (don't think too hard about that one).
I was discussing cigarette taxes with a friend of mine who does research in addictions, and I stated my position that cigarette taxes are good. She made the point that cigarette taxes are very regressive. They hit the poor who are addicted much harder than the middle class or wealthy. There will be some who might stop smoking because of them, but the hardcore addicted will continue to smoke because the can't stop, and it higher taxes will take a significant toll on them and their families. It essentially m
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans "asked county auditors statewide to reconsider ballots that were rejected on Election Day." [msn.com] Because apparently when Democrats can't punch out a hole right, they're stupid idiots, but when Republicans can't fill out a ballot, their voice deserves to be heard.
If you're going to point fingers and call hypocrisy, stand on less shaky ground next time. It also helps when you're not trying to defend people that explicitly broke the law.
Re: (Score:2)
As a general rule, why should someone do this? When it comes to politics these days (always?) it seems you would be on fairly safe ground whenever you pointed your finger and called hypocrisy. Safe as to being right that is, not safe as to not being one while doing the pointing.
"It also helps when you're not trying to defend people that explicitly broke the law."
Now this statement is true in general, I am not up on t
The problem with both of you (Score:2)
The real truth is that when it comes to politics, a portion of the supporters of every party believes winning > fairness. All this talk about hypocrisy is just attempting to hide this fact behind partisan blinders.
You forgot .. (Score:2)
You forgot the issuance of press credentials and the subsequent destruction of visitation records for a certain male prostitute.
[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/8/12305
One has to wonder exactly who he was "interviewing" after hours?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they are all corrupt or unethical in some manner.
The difference as I see it is republicans screw over the entire US population and selective populations of other countries that happen to have something
well-put (Score:2)
Washington State (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest problem with that election was outrageous sloppiness in (Democratic) King County. It looks more like sloppiness than fraud, given that the problem is that they misplaced and didn't count thousands of ballots that were likely to have favored Gregoire. The Secretary of State excoriated them for that and other screwups. (They also tried to cover up a spectacular failure to keep a record of how many absentee ballots came in).
For more about King County, see blackboxvoting.com.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Perhaps the Democrats aren't child molesting, war mongering election thieves? Perhaps they aren't election thieves at all? Of course, this sort of thing is hard for a Republican to understand. Nonetheless, it's a point that you may want to consider.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Interesting)
When a Republican wins a close election, it was stolen.
When a Dem wins a close election, it's the will of the people.
See Governor, Washington state. How many selective recounts did it take until the Dem won?
Starting Score: 0 pointsModeration 0
50% Insightful
30% Flamebait
20% Troll
Extra 'Insightful' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 0
Heh. I do believe I find the moderation on this post more interesting than the actual flamewar that it inspired. I almost wish we had meta-meta-moderation so I could see how this plays out...
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a recount in this case because STATE LAW DICTATED THAT IT BE SO. Are you seriously suggsting that Ohio does not have the right to perform recounts, just because it offends your political sensibilities? Ohio should tolerate election fraud just because other states may have abused the recount process? No offense (just kidding, offense is totally intended), but fuck you. Fuck you right in the ear. Recounts are awesome. I'll take a hundred recounts, if the alternative is the selection of the head of state by a council of presidential appointees. If it requires a hundred recounts and total openness about the results of every single ballot, well then good. It's about time.
These traitors have already admitted that they broke the law, and rigged the recount. It doesn't matter who won -- they rigged the recount and broke the law. The interfered with the democratic process. They need to hang. It's as simple as that.
I know you're bitter that America is turning against the politics of cowardice, torture, paranoid delusions, and perpetual warfare -- but that's just progress, and you've got to learn to accept with it. The world described in 1984 was supposed to be a dire warning of things to come, not a proposal for the utopian society.
Re: (Score:3)
These election workers should do serious prison time. You don't get to fuck with elections because you find it convenient to keep the initial, flawed result.
As for the trogolodyte motherfuckers who say "how many times do you want to count the ballots in this box", the answer, as anyone who has ever handled real quantities of cash knows, is: UNTIL YOU GET THE SAME FUCKING ANSWER TWICE.
Sheesh. They act like counting is some mysterious, subjective process.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
In reference to your assertion of cranial-rectal immersion, the Republicants (spelling error mine) happened to have the power, and thus the ability to be ruthless with it, which they undeniably did. As for the Democrats, it's difficult to abuse power that you don't have. But now that the Democrats have the power, they are already [com.com] moving [senate.gov] to abuse [broadcastnewsroom.com] it.
In other words, don't be a shill for a particular party. They both suck and neither cares about your rights.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
But that being said, I still don't think they hold a candle to the Repugnicans (I prefer that mispelling) when it comes to ruthlessness, corruption, and contempt for constitutional limits. They will at least pay lip service to the notion of a public interest, and while they'll surely have their own scandals w.r.t. lobbyists and such, I doubt that they'll set up the same kind of brazen one-stop-shopping monopoly on corruption that the GOP did with their K Street Project.
And don't even get me started about who's benefitting from our middle east entanglements and who's not, and how that might affect their willingness to (ever) get off the Gravy Train...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: at least two of the three examples you list are complete bullshit.
Yeah? Which two? I guess you could say that they're "bullshit" as long as you don't mind the gov't telling us who can say what and where they can say it. As long as you don't mind the gov't making one have their "papers in order" before one can engage in certain types of political speech. Personally, I mind. A lot.
And since the subject is hypocracy, where you appropriatly porportionally outraged at, for example, Tom Delay auctioning off chairmanships to the biggest fundraisers?
Yes, I was. If you read my post, you would have been able to see that I am actually quite hostile to both parties. But, apparently, you are only hostile to one and you think that
Re: (Score:2)
The courts would never let something like that happen, no matter how glaring the discrepancies.
Court systems aren't about justice or fairness, they're about orderliness and predictability. They would find it necessary to sweep such a grand problem under the rug.
Re: (Score:2)
A sitting and living president can only be removed by process of impeachment (or resignation), and this would only happen over voting problems if it were proven that he was personally involved.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*-not just for blowjobs any longer
It wasn't for a blowjob. It was for perjury.
Granted, he perjured himself in testimony about a blowjob, but it was still perjury listed in the Articles of Impeachment.
Sigh.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In each county there are about 3 or 4 full time election offices that are manned. It mainly consist of the bord of election/electors and a secretary or two. Sometime one of the board members becomes the secretary. In my county, the board isn't even full time, just a few data entry level secretaries.
Now this is important for several reasons. One, all the poll workers are volunteers. Sure they g