Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Do we know the specific names of any of the counties that voted with paper ballots or was that a state-wide thing as a protest against the touch screen machines?

Well, I was including two different things in that question:

1.) Early voters (who I think all voted on paper ballots, not touch screens, though I'm not actually sure of that)

2.) March 4th voters who used paper ballots


Paper ballots were available everywhere in the state so far as I know, as an alternative to touch-screen voting.

This might help:

http://vote.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enr/f?p=152:5:0

That's cool!

Doesn't answer the central question I have, though. Basically -- early voting looked like it'd be good for Obama. Is the early voting tallied and accounted for in that 99.99 % reporting figure? Or is that still to come?

Hillary already failed the TX half of the 8% margin that I was rooting for, but it seems somewhat possible (somewhat) that if there was a lot of early voting that leaned Obama and that hasn't been accounted for yet, that could knock a point or two off of the current margin.

I still haven't found anything definitive, but I'm getting the impression that early voting is included in the current totals.

Found these press releases on the Ohio SOS site:

Brunner & Dann Work to Help Boards of Elections Deal with Flooding Issues


Several Ohio County Boards of Elections are dealing with flooding or anticipated flooding issues at some polling locations. As a proactive measure, the attached court order (PDF) was filed this morning to allow boards to adjust polling locations in response to these issues. Also requesting that boards be able to permit provisional voting at the board of elections office location.

Counties currently affected;

Jefferson

Counties that may be affected include;

Adams, Harrison, Hocking, Perry, Pike

The plan for future counties is that the judge will issue a separate order for each county.




----------------------------------

Ohio Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere with Brunner Directive for Paper Ballots


COLUMBUS, Ohio - Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously denied the Union County Commissioners' request for an order that would have prevented Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner from implementing a recent directive she issued to require county boards of elections using touch screen machines to have backup paper ballots available for voters who want them.

In response to vulnerabilities brought to light late last year through Ohio's top-to-bottom voting machine review, Project EVEREST (Evaluation and Validation of Election Related Equipment, Standards and Testing), the secretary of state's directive (2008-01) ordered all boards of elections using electronic touch-screen voting machines to provide as an alternative an optical scan paper ballot to any voter who requests it. Secretary Brunner ordered that ballots be printed in number equal to at least 10% of the number of voters who voted in a previous, similar election. All other boards complied with the directive, with a number of them printing up to 40%, but the Union County Board of Elections split on the question of whether the follow the secretary's directive (which boards are required by law to follow), and eventually the county commissioners took Secretary Brunner to court in two separate actions over the matter.

Union County had objected to complying with the directive, stating the cost to be $86,000 but has now complied at a reported actual cost of $13,000. The county commissioners had previously filed a lower court lawsuit that was dismissed two weeks ago. Union County Board of Elections member Robert Parrott joined the commissioners' subsequent Ohio Supreme Court action. Parrott is the son of the judge who granted temporary relief against the secretary to prevent her from removing any board of elections member before the case was transferred to Franklin County and ultimately dismissed.

"Given the nature of the limitations and vulnerabilities with touch-screen voting equipment identified in the EVEREST Report, many voters would prefer the security and simplicity of a paper ballot," Brunner said. "The court's decision allows Tuesday's election to move forward as planned, giving voters the opportunity to choose a paper ballot and election officials the security of having backup paper ballots in the event of long lines or voting machine failure." Brunner added.

Just wondering if these are the same super delegate who can change their mind at any time.......? God, that was probably drilled in to my head everyday that Clinton was ahead.

This is the only thing specific I've found and it is just for one county. If it is anything like how California handled abstentee ballots here, it will take a few days for them to be processed, validated and counted.


http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/8030509

More than 46,500 cast in ballots for county
By TAMARIA L. KULEMEKA
The Eagle-Gazette Staff
[email protected]

LANCASTER - The unofficial results are in, and about 46,500 of the county's 101,000 registered voters cast ballots in Tuesday's Primary Election.


...

The Board of Elections received 7,751 absentee ballots. Provisional ballots won't be counted until the official total is done, Henderly said.

"There's a process we have to go through to verify provisionals," she said.

I doubt it has to do with the super delegates. Every network has the same source for those so that wouldn't explain the differing numbers.

I think Soz is right and it has to do with the delegate counts from states that are still going through the caucus process. Some networks are including the full statewide allocations before they are official while others are not including them at all until they are official while others are including only the portion that is official at this point in the process.

I don't understand why the DNC doesn't produce a running tally as the final authority as each delegate in the primary and caucus process is recognized and allocated according to the state and national rules.

Meanwhile, I can't find any polls for Wyoming. (This Saturday!)

This article seems to indicate it's six of one, half a dozen of the other...

Here's an article with voter registration trends by county in Wyoming so we'll know which areas to focus on:

http://wyofile.com/voter_registration_Democratic_Party_Wyoming.htm

The majority will vote for McCain in the general. In the primary, some were probably voting for Clinton to keep her in the race just as some voted for Obama to shut out Clinton. Both Obama and Clinton would have a problem in Texas (as well as some other southern states) in the general. But you knew that.

Yes, I wish we had numbers on that ("keep her in it so we can win it" votes). I doubt it was asked, and who would admit it? But there seems to be ample anecdotal evidence that it really happened, in both Ohio and Texas. To what extent? No idea. Maybe statistically nothing.

Just saw on CNN that Obama won Columbus/ Franklin County -- not a surprise but still nice to see.

I hope we see a lot more "votes to keep Clinton in it" coming from republicans especially now that McCain's clinched the republican nominee.


Now the only vote that counts for voters is in the democratic primary.

So what is "maporsche's" real agenda?

Not a bad prediction. Better than Zogby. Not only close in Texas but won fairly easily. I don't think this would have happened a week ago, proving the Obama hype may have peaked. The hype needs to translate into more informed, deeper political support. When you shoot up fast, you can also fall like a rock. A percentage of Obama's support runs pretty deep, but alot of it is very shallow, and could evaporate quite a bit further if the press keeps asking tough questions and his record comes under more examination. I think some of what we observed in this election is saying "whoa, who is this guy anyway."

To vote for clinton of course. I thought I've made that quite clear.

True - I forgot about that. I doubt it explains the full extent of the margin though. I mean, the trend is consistent: Clinton pretty much always does especially well in (white) rural areas. Just the sheer proportions of her lead in the Panhandle struck me.

nimh, if you have ever been in the Panhandle of Texas, you would know the people are fiercely patriotic, independent, and proud of their country. Perhaps they don't take kindly to a few things, one example being Michelle Obama saying she is proud of her country for the first time here recently. That would be considered almost treasonous in Dalhart, Texas.

Soz,

I found some statistics that may or may not be helpful for Wyoming...

Wyoming Popular Vote for United States President

Wyoming Census Population Figures by County (scroll down to other pages)

Wyoming Caucus Facts and Figures