WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Foxfyre wrote:

why it is being done in secret.

Counting of votes in secret? Shocked

Well, that's an additional point why I think you perhaps should shpuld chance the system.

0 Replies

It looks like Arizona is still counting provisional ballots. Those are ballots with a name attached to them. Until the voter is verified as being a valid voter the ballot won't be counted. The idea of a secret ballot is we don't get to publically know who voted for which candidate. That is why the ballots are presently kept from the public. Once the voter is verified and the ballot is submitted as valid then the ballot is available for public view without a name attached to it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It looks like Arizona is still counting provisional ballots. Those are ballots with a name attached to them. Until the voter is verified as being a valid voter the ballot won't be counted. The idea of a secret ballot is we don't get to publically know who voted for which candidate. That is why the ballots are presently kept from the public. Once the voter is verified and the ballot is submitted as valid then the ballot is available for public view without a name attached to it.

In this case I agree with Walter. The system should be changed. People have the right to cast their secret ballot at the polls. Those ballots are not counted in secret. When they choose to vote other than at the polls necessitating them attaching a name to their ballot should not allow that vote to be counted in secret. If people don't want the risk of exposure, then let them go to the polls on election day.

For that matter, any system that requires verification of the authenticity of the vote after the ballot is cast, is a bad system. New Mexico has Voter ID cards for instance issued to all registered voters. The poll workers however, are not required to ask for these. They did ask for a photo ID this election, which I thought refreshing, but people can vote without one just the same.

I have NO problem with people being required to show positive ID before they cast their ballot. And I had no problem with the old system that required people to show up at their precinct or cast a normal absentee ballot. This stuff about being able to vote anywhere and then let the vote counters sort it out and verify it all later sucks and of course will produce fraudulent ballots in the best of cases.

0 Replies

Go find out what a provisional ballot is before you make such comments Fox.

A provisional ballot IS cast at the polling place. It is provisional because there is some reason that the person isn't listed as able to vote. Either they aren't on the poll register or they are listed as having recieved an absentee ballot.
When that occurs they are given a provisional ballot to vote. The ballot is kept with the name until such time as their voting eligibility is confirmed.

Say you apply for an absentee ballot but it never shows up for you to send in. You then go to the polls to vote but they have you listed as having voted already since you were sent an absentee ballot. You could vote provisionally and they would have to check to see if your absentee ballot was mailed in before they count your vote at the polling place.

Another possibility is you are registered to vote but the person that put your name into the poll registry mispelled it. You would be given a provisional ballot.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Go find out what a provisional ballot is before you make such comments Fox.

A provisional ballot IS cast at the polling place. It is provisional because there is some reason that the person isn't listed as able to vote. Either they aren't on the poll register or they are listed as having recieved an absentee ballot.
When that occurs they are given a provisional ballot to vote. The ballot is kept with the name until such time as their voting eligibility is confirmed.

Say you apply for an absentee ballot but it never shows up for you to send in. You then go to the polls to vote but they have you listed as having voted already since you were sent an absentee ballot. You could vote provisionally and they would have to check to see if your absentee ballot was mailed in before they count your vote at the polling place.

Another possibility is you are registered to vote but the person that put your name into the poll registry mispelled it. You would be given a provisional ballot.

If you order an absentee ballot and it never shows up, it should be incumbant upon the voter to check that out BEFORE election day. The absentee ballots are supposed to be cast well before election day giving the voter time to do this. Personally I think people should have to show up in person and provide positive identification to get an absentee ballot.

The voter can also check in with the county clerk and verify that his/her name is on the list prior to election day. On election day, at least in New Mexico, when you go to the polls you sign your name against your name on the list to show that you have been there and you have voted.

Anybody who exercises their right to vote should be intelligent enough to be able to do these two things. After these two things are done, any screw ups would be extremely rare and there could be some provision for that not necessitating days of counting thousands of provision ballots in secret.

Also under the old system you were required to register to vote sufficiently ahead of the election so that your name could be added to the register. If you moved, you had to re-register or go back to your old precinct to vote. This too provided good checks and balances against fraudulent voting and was not too much to ask of people who are serious about exercising their right to vote.

0 Replies

We know we're on the voter registration, because we receive mailings on the election, including a pamphlet that tells about the candidates, the pros and cons of all the propositions/initiatives, place and times of where to vote. As for my absentee ballot, I receive a mailer telling me I will be receiving a absentee ballot.

If none of these happens, it's up to the voter to inquire or register to vote, especially if he/she changed address after the last election.

0 Replies

So Fox, if someone were to report you dead or order a ballot for you one week before the election, you would be fine with not voting? or would you demand a provisional ballot when prevented from voting at your polling place?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So Fox, if someone were to report you dead or order a ballot for you one week before the election, you would be fine with not voting? or would you demand a provisional ballot when prevented from voting at your polling place?

I would think it far more important to report the obvious intent to commit fraud and I would expect the authorities to arrest the person who did that and prosecute him/her to the fullest extent of the law. I would not see my own right to vote as superceding everybody else's right to a fair and honest election nor corruption of the process by making the lawfully elected candidate wait for weeks or months to find out whether s/he had won the election.

And you must have missed that part where I suggested that sensible rules and controls would reduce the inevitable screwup to a minimum so that many thousands of 'provisional ballots' would not have to be counted. Glitches could be essentially prevented by stopping all absentee ballot submissions a reasonable time before election day and requiring positive identification in order to get ANY kind of ballot including an absentee one. And in the 2000 through 2004 elections, quite a few dead people voted quite handily so I don't think reporting me dead would have any appreciable effect.

But thank you for pointing out some of the dirty tricks used to corrupt the process and affirming the argument that the process needs to be cleaned up and tightened. Rather than make it easier for people to vote and thus easier to corrupt the process, we all should be demanding that the people authorized to vote are the ones allowed to do so.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

...
Can you be more specific? What exactly have Krugman and the Democrats been doing?

Accusing Republicans and Conservatives of being what Democrats and Liberals are being:

1. Liars;
2. Anti-semites;
3. Racists;
4. Bigots;
5. Discriminators;
6. Slanderers;
7. Libelers;
8. Obsrtructionists;
9. No-planers;
10. Voter frauders;
11. Civil rights abusers;
12. Privacy violators;
13. Tax abusers;
...

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It will be curious to see specifics in reply to thomas.

I'd like to point out the anti-semitism which sits, barely disguised, beneath Ican's "criticism" of Krugman.

Your false accusation is timely is it not?

0 Replies

1; Liars.

In the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies." Russ Rymer

0 Replies

Ican,

You should add one more entry to your list...

14. Losers

0 Replies

1; Liars.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent

Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

0 Replies

1; Liars.

The Other Lies of George Bush
David Corn

This article was adapted from the new book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers).

George W. Bush is a liar. He has lied large and small, directly and by omission. His Iraq lies have loomed largest. In the run-up to the invasion, Bush based his case for war on a variety of unfounded claims that extended far beyond his controversial uranium-from-Niger assertion. He maintained that Saddam Hussein possessed "a massive stockpile" of unconventional weapons and was directly "dealing" with Al Qaeda--two suppositions unsupported then (or now) by the available evidence. He said the International Atomic Energy Agency had produced a report in 1998 noting that Iraq was six months from developing a nuclear weapon; no such report existed (and the IAEA had actually reported then that there was no indication Iraq had the ability to produce weapons-grade material). Bush asserted that Iraq was "harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior Al Qaeda terrorist planner"; US intelligence officials told reporters this terrorist was operating ouside of Al Qaeda control. And two days before launching the war, Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr, who is conducting a review of the prewar intelligence, has said that intelligence was full of qualifiers and caveats, and based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. That is, it was not no-doubt stuff. And after the major fighting was done, Bush declared, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." But he could only point to two tractor-trailers that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded were mobile bioweapons labs. Other experts--including the DIA's own engineering experts--disagreed with this finding.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

1; Liars.

In the Bush administration "the negation of truth is so systematic. Dishonest accounting, willful scientific illiteracy, bowdlerized federal fact sheets, payola paid to putative journalists, 'news' networks run by right-wing apparatchiks, think tanks devoted to propaganda rather than thought, the purging of intelligence gatherers and experts throughout the bureaucracy whose findings might refute the party line -- this is the machinery of mendacity...The point here is not the hypocrisy involved, though that is egregious. The point is the downgrading of truth and honesty from principles with universal meaning to partisan weapons to be sheathed or drawn as necessary. No wonder the Bush administration feels no compunction to honor the truth or seek it; it conceives truth as a tactic, valuable only insofar as it is useful against one's enemies." Russ Rymer

And here is another timely false accusation against the Republicans of exactly what the Democrats are guilty

0 Replies

1; Liars.

ican, You're just deaf. Trying to argue with your kind of deafness is fruitless.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Ican,

You should add one more entry to your list...

14. Losers

Are you saying that Democrats falsely accuse the Republicans of being losers, when they themselves are losers?

Confused

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq

Large stores of ingredients for chemical weapons have been found throughout Iraq. However, no ready-to-use chemical weapons have been found.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

...
ican, You're just deaf. Trying to argue with your kind of deafness is fruitless.

There you go falsely accusing me of what is true about you.

0 Replies

Here's some truth just for you: You lost the election! The American People sent a message to your king that he's not trustworthy to win anything.

He's a liar!

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know