If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Starting Monday, provisional ballots in Ohio will be located in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'   (alternet.org) divider line 201
    More: Scary, provisional ballots, Ohio, critical state, John G. W. Husted, Jr., election officials, impacts, glass, secretary of states  
•       •       •

3054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Nov 2012 at 8:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



201 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 10:53:02 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: No, the current ruling was put in place on Friday. That's why the lawsuit was filed, and why a judge said he would rule before the provisional ballots are going to be opened on November 17th.

what are you talking about? The form (from January) clearly tells the voter he is supposed to check off which form of ID he presented.


From the Times Union(linked again, for your pleasure):

The advocates, including lawyers for unions that previously sued over provisional ballots, said the order by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted late Friday wrongly puts the burden of recording the form of ID used on a provisional ballot on voters, not poll workers.

Emphasis is mine.

I don't care whether or not you think it's an actual burden. The order is in direct opposition to Ohio law, and, if this rule is upheld, will affect ALL provisional ballots since they are not counted until November 17th.

The rule is new, and the lawsuit was filed today in an attempt to block the rule from taking affect.
 
2012-11-03 10:54:08 PM

The Great EZE: If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.


Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.
 
2012-11-03 10:54:45 PM
Provisional ballots are not legal until verified. Hence the word provisional.
 
2012-11-03 10:56:08 PM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: [t3.gstatic.com image 258x195]

Happiness in sodomy indeed


Seemed appropriate.
 
2012-11-03 10:59:25 PM

austin_millbarge: The Great EZE: If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.


Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.
 
2012-11-03 11:00:33 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: I don't care whether or not you think it's an actual burden. The order is in direct opposition to Ohio law, and, if this rule is upheld, will affect ALL provisional ballots since they are not counted until November 17th.

The rule is new, and the lawsuit was filed today in an attempt to block the rule from taking affect.


Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.
 
2012-11-03 11:05:48 PM

L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: From the Times Union(linked again, for your pleasure):

The advocates, including lawyers for unions that previously sued over provisional ballots, said the order by Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted late Friday wrongly puts the burden of recording the form of ID used on a provisional ballot on voters, not poll workers.

Emphasis is mine.


dunno what to tell you, the article is wrong. The form has said that it is the voter's responsibility since January.

"If you do not check one of the following boxes affirming the type of ID you showed to the precinct election official or
do not complete Form 10-T (only if you are eligible to do so), the board of elections will conclude that you did NOT
show ID to your precinct election official and you must show ID at the board of elections during the 10 days after the
election for your vote to be eligible to be counted."

Gonna believe a newspaper article or your lying eyes?
 
2012-11-03 11:07:33 PM

skullkrusher: L Ron Hubbard's Last Fart: I'm not quite sure what point you are arguing here. I'm not at all sure you know what point you are arguing.

Ohio Secretary of State John Husted issued a ruling that any ballots cast provisionally must, contrary to Ohio law, be filled out by the voter and not an election representative. This determination will happen on November 17th when, again by Ohio law, provisional ballots are counted. Those ballots will be judged by the ruling made by John Husted on Friday.

Educate yourself. It'll prevent you from looking like a complete tool in the future.

TFA says he changed the rules just before the election. He didn't. The rule has put this burden on the voter since at least January of 2012. This is not a switcheroo at the last minute. This does not apply new rules to provisional ballots cast now vis-a-vis ones cast last week. It is contrary to what seems to be a preliminary court ruling but that appears to be ongoing.

You know who uses the word "tool"? Frat boys at State U in 1995. That's who


Well that's a bit of a simplification. I could be wrong so correct me where I am:

-he pushed a directive a year ago that was ruled on last week (struck down)
-he decides to reissue the directive 4 days before the election forcing another ruling from a different court thus prompting lawsuits from voter rights advocacy group

It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.

For the layman, he is trying his damnest to make some hanging chads.

It's hardly the "nothing to see here / non story" that some here would like it to appear.
But to be completely fair, tfa does a terrible job of explaining this.

Also, as to which ballots get thrown out at the time of counting should he get his way... I'd like to note that no where on that form is there a place to detail the date it was filled/filed. That could be nothing.... or a big deal.
 
2012-11-03 11:07:59 PM

yukichigai: Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.


I think the court ruling pertains to tossing ballots which don't have the ID properly identified - not whether the voter or a poll worker must complete the form though that appears contrary to the letter of the law
 
2012-11-03 11:08:48 PM

yukichigai: The wording is identical between the two directives. Basically, he was told "change it" and he didn't.


Any chance a judge could tell him to "FU" before Tuesday?
 
2012-11-03 11:10:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Filling out that form is a "burden"?


A legal burden is not the same thing as a physical burden, or even an imposition. It refers to who has a responsibility to do something.

Putting all of the responsibility on voters who are probably not familiar with the provisional form to fill everything out perfectly, and refusing to count their votes if there is even the slightest mistake, is a recipie for denying legal voters their voice in government.

But somehow, I think you knew that already.
 
2012-11-03 11:10:23 PM

MurphyMurphy: It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.


I don't see any meaningful differences between January's directive and Friday's. I think he's just trying to reaffirm the procedure to ensure uniformity while these court cases are pending so that all districts handle it the same way.

I *think* his administration is appealing the ruling but it's a big mess to figure this shiat out
 
2012-11-03 11:10:26 PM

MurphyMurphy: It seems it's well within his authority


I worded that poorly.
Maybe "he seems to think it's well within his authority"
or
"courts will decide whether this is within his authority"
 
2012-11-03 11:10:57 PM

skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.

So you're saying that the directive, issued Friday, by Husted, never actually happened.

what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?


READ THIS, STUPID.

the directive you are quoting was declared illegal. If the NEW directive does not change its wording then that is not legal either.

Get it now? Anyone in there?
 
2012-11-03 11:11:05 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: yukichigai: The wording is identical between the two directives. Basically, he was told "change it" and he didn't.

Any chance a judge could tell him to "FU" before Tuesday?


he is supposed to respond to the lawsuit by Monday so... yes?
 
2012-11-03 11:12:14 PM

gaspode: skullkrusher: hillbillypharmacist: skullkrusher: He didn't change the farking rule. Alternet is a farking rag.

So you're saying that the directive, issued Friday, by Husted, never actually happened.

what I'm saying is that you haven't read the directive, have you?

READ THIS, STUPID.

the directive you are quoting was declared illegal. If the NEW directive does not change its wording then that is not legal either.

Get it now? Anyone in there?


which is utterly unlike what has been said throughout this discussion up until recently. This is why the outrage didn't make any sense - because people were pretending to be outraged at shiat that didn't farking happen. OK, "STUPID"?
 
2012-11-03 11:14:50 PM

skullkrusher: MurphyMurphy: It's both. This both happened in January and he is pulling a switcheroo by doing it again right before the election. It seems it's well within his authority but also seems to be a clear case of trying to muddy waters.

A last minute attempt to possibly have some standing later for throwing out ballots should this come down to the wire and need decided by recounts / counting of provisional ballots 2 weeks after the election.

I don't see any meaningful differences between January's directive and Friday's. I think he's just trying to reaffirm the procedure to ensure uniformity while these court cases are pending so that all districts handle it the same way.

I *think* his administration is appealing the ruling but it's a big mess to figure this shiat out


I think his actions on Friday are their way of "appealing" it? If that's what one wants to call it. Another might just say they are ignoring the last court ruling.

I think it goes a bit beyond clarification, more insistence and again, kicking the waters up to muddy them a bit.

I can't seem to find enough info on this to be able to tell for certain.

One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.
 
2012-11-03 11:19:50 PM

MurphyMurphy: One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.


Oct. 22: Ohio Has 50-50 Chance of Deciding Election
 
2012-11-03 11:24:09 PM

skullkrusher: yukichigai: Technically the rule isn't new, but it was thrown out as illegal in a court decision last week. Then the SoS reissued the same rule in a new directive a week later (Friday).

When you put it like that, it sounds WAY more asinine than just making a stupid rule change. The guy comes across like a petulant child who refuses to admit he was wrong. This ON TOP of the other badness.

I think the court ruling pertains to tossing ballots which don't have the ID properly identified - not whether the voter or a poll worker must complete the form though that appears contrary to the letter of the law


Oh.. heh, LRHLF was talking about the other thing. Thought he was talking about the voter form requirement. Meh, point still stands, makes the SoS look pretty petulant.
 
2012-11-03 11:30:14 PM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: MurphyMurphy: One thing is for certain, if this does all come down to Ohio, which I doubt it will... odds are increasing that we will have another President selected by a court.

Oct. 22: Ohio Has 50-50 Chance of Deciding Election


It sure can, I'm not sure if the odds are as clean as 50/50 (but they might as well be)

That's the beauty of words like doubt, confident, believe... they are all based on whim and faith and not math which is wickedly complicated and suspect in regards to election fortune telling. And it increases seemingly logarithmically in it's complexity and suspicion as we approach the decision itself.

Like some logic machine grinding beyond it's engineered ability until it spits out some nonsense number that seems impossibly simple and must be incorrect. That all the thousands and millions of input somehow could possibly result in "42"... or "Bush wins by 500 votes"

I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P
 
2012-11-03 11:42:17 PM
Frankly, I don't care whether the policy at issue here is intended to disenfranchise anyone. The bottom line is that the SecState dared to violate the clear text of a controlling statute, even after a judge told him to quit. Regardless of whether the asshole intended to disenfranchise anyone (hint: he did), the bottom line is that he has shown a deep and abiding contempt for the rule of law - the very law that he, as a member of the executive branch of government, has sworn to uphold.

So, yeah - fark that guy.
 
2012-11-03 11:48:08 PM

The Great EZE: austin_millbarge: The Great EZE: If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.


I've read a few articles online this weekend that indicate NC and FLA early voting favors O very heavily.
It's late and I'm too tired to go back and try to find them. It's not worth betting the house on but i found it interesting nonetheless.
 
2012-11-03 11:52:28 PM
Traitors fighting against American citizens.

Beat the shiat out of them.
 
2012-11-04 12:10:10 AM

Blue_Blazer: [t3.gstatic.com image 258x195]



Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.

 
 
2012-11-04 12:10:19 AM
"These ballots have been hermetically sealed inside a mayonnaise jar underneath Funk & Wagnalls' porch since noon today" 

-Ed McMahon
 
2012-11-04 12:22:01 AM
Invade Ohio, leave no prisoners, give no quarter, destroy them.
 
2012-11-04 12:23:56 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Filling out that form is a "burden"?


Burden or not, it's against Ohio law (which specifies that the election official at the polling place fills in the appropriate part of the form). Why do you hate obeying the law?
 
2012-11-04 12:29:05 AM

MurphyMurphy: I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P


While that's a nice soundbyte,

a) statistics != math, necessarily. Statistics mean jack shiat unless the methodology used to obtain them is explicit. While math is integral, unless you adequately explain the methodology used to obtain your numbers, standard deviations, etc., it means abso-effing-lutely nothing. *
b) Unless you have something with a standard deviation of exactly 0, statistical projections are just that - projections.
c) Elections are a one time event. If you toss a penny a 100 times, there's a chance you could end up with all tails - but the more and more you do it, the closer and closer it's going to get to being 50-50. Stats in elections are a forecast, nothing more.
d) However, the electoral college allocations per state *is* fact, and math is math, and I'll put my faith in math everytime. If by faith you mean "it's freaking math, and the math checks out"

imgs.xkcd.com

* My stats teacher in high school was a Marine. Not only did he very effectively drill stats and how to interpret them into our heads *very* well, I can no longer look at a USA Today without getting stabby. Thanks, Mr. D!
 
2012-11-04 12:32:48 AM

skullkrusher: Felgraf: skullkrusher: sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?

Well, here's the question. Is this directive applied to ALL ballots cast provisionally, or just those from here-on-out? (If just those from here-on-out, how are they supposed to be able to tell which were cast previously and which weren't?)

seems to be some discrepancy about that.

As I understand it, previously a form had a checkbox which was filled out by a poll worker indicating which form of ID the voter presented.
After this directive (a new form?) has a checkbox which is filled out by the voter to indicate which form of ID the voter presented.

Pre and post directive, the box much have been checked. Presumably if the box was not checked, the ballot was invalid - how could it be otherwise?

I don't see the point of the directive nor the outrage over it


Okay, simple question: this new directive is in direct contravention to Ohio law and a court decree. Whether or not you view it as a burden, do you agree that the Ohio Secretary of State should comply with Ohio election law?
 
2012-11-04 12:52:14 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: MurphyMurphy: I find in times when everyone is placing their trust in faith, it's best to place mine in math and science.
And in times when you find everyone placing their trust in math and science, your best off running on faith.

:P

While that's a nice soundbyte,

a) statistics != math, necessarily. Statistics mean jack shiat unless the methodology used to obtain them is explicit. While math is integral, unless you adequately explain the methodology used to obtain your numbers, standard deviations, etc., it means abso-effing-lutely nothing. *
b) Unless you have something with a standard deviation of exactly 0, statistical projections are just that - projections.
c) Elections are a one time event. If you toss a penny a 100 times, there's a chance you could end up with all tails - but the more and more you do it, the closer and closer it's going to get to being 50-50. Stats in elections are a forecast, nothing more.
d) However, the electoral college allocations per state *is* fact, and math is math, and I'll put my faith in math everytime. If by faith you mean "it's freaking math, and the math checks out"

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x308]

* My stats teacher in high school was a Marine. Not only did he very effectively drill stats and how to interpret them into our heads *very* well, I can no longer look at a USA Today without getting stabby. Thanks, Mr. D!



If you are a fan of that picture, then I'm sure you also know this one:
img708.imageshack.us
Philosophers are all sound bites.

That said, I'm a man of science. I wasn't saying I have no faith in math.

99/100 I'll choose the science. But to call polling and all the legal shenanigans that occur in a national election a science is just a bit iffy. But we call lots of things science so it's acceptable.

To presume because you're using science and math to make a prediction that your prediction is anything but a guess is what I laugh at. And I don't think you fall into that category. It's one thing to say "hey, there is an 80% chance of this happening". One person, maybe you, maybe me.. will say "yes, that has an 80% chance of happening". And we will understand what that means.

Others will say "hey, it's an 80% chance... this is a sure thing" and completely let it fly over their head exactly the difference between a chance and a done deal.

So when everyone and their brother that usually pay no attention to actual math and science start pointing to data and projections as if they even understand them and presume to use them as proof of their own personal opinions. I laugh. At that point the math all means jack all. That is what my "soundbyte" means.

There is a science to the process and the projections are made on reasonably sound math. But everything from presumed margins of error based on historical performance to the fundamental flaws and assumptions made in every poll taken gives doubt.

That some then stack these shaky numbers on top of each other many and try to attribute a final analysis is nothing more than a castle built on sand. It's good for a rough idea, but that is all. Like you said, a projection.

It doesn't mean I'm disavowing the math or the science that made the projection, it's that I actually understand it's nothing more than just that. Interesting to look at, but I won't use it to presume outcome. All you need to do is look at the many many times when the projections pointed one way and the reality went a different direction entirely.

Because, as we know, mathematical approximations and scientific theories are great until reality comes along and shows them differently. Then we make new ones.
 
2012-11-04 12:57:23 AM

Genevieve Marie: Blue_Blazer: [t3.gstatic.com image 258x195]


Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.


My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.

Or I could just go with:

Come down get off your farkin' cross, we need the farking space to nail the next fool martyr.
 
2012-11-04 01:10:22 AM

Lord Dimwit: skullkrusher: Felgraf: skullkrusher: sounds like this form is new to this directive and if this form is not completed correctly, it will not be counted. This is an outrage?

Well, here's the question. Is this directive applied to ALL ballots cast provisionally, or just those from here-on-out? (If just those from here-on-out, how are they supposed to be able to tell which were cast previously and which weren't?)

seems to be some discrepancy about that.

As I understand it, previously a form had a checkbox which was filled out by a poll worker indicating which form of ID the voter presented.
After this directive (a new form?) has a checkbox which is filled out by the voter to indicate which form of ID the voter presented.

Pre and post directive, the box much have been checked. Presumably if the box was not checked, the ballot was invalid - how could it be otherwise?

I don't see the point of the directive nor the outrage over it

Okay, simple question: this new directive is in direct contravention to Ohio law and a court decree. Whether or not you view it as a burden, do you agree that the Ohio Secretary of State should comply with Ohio election law?


sure he should but the case is ongoing as it is in appeals court. That said, barring an injunction against the prior ruling pending the outcome of the appeal (not sure if this exists) he shouldn't issue directives which contravene current court rulings. In the end, the case in question is about whether they can toss ballots that are incorrectly filled out, not whether a voter or poll worker should check a box.

This isn't the election rigging you're looking for
 
2012-11-04 01:12:28 AM

skullkrusher: I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio?


No, this is the GOP waving its hands and shouting "look at me!!!" to provide cover for the other squad who are quietly applying secret last-minute software patches to the electronic vote-tabulating systems.
 
2012-11-04 01:13:59 AM
Said it before and I'll say it again, Husted needs to have a broomstick broken off in his ass, and then be thrown in prison where inmates can push that broomstick further up his colon.

I hope that Obama wins Ohio despite all of these illegal efforts to steal the election for Romney.....then there are tons of investigations into Ohio and a bunch of republicans end up in prison and it's made well known that they tried to steal the election. And several other people end up with broomsticks broken off in their asses as well.
 
2012-11-04 01:40:20 AM

skullkrusher: This isn't the election rigging you're looking for


Well if it's not rigging it's certainly engineering.

And as a once upon a time mechanic I can tell you, there is often no daylight between those terms.

The guy isn't simultaneously doing nothing and something at the same time. No matter how much the current (R) party would like to exist in quantum flux on almost every topic.
 
2012-11-04 02:02:05 AM

Blue_Blazer: My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.


I got it :) I just...

Blue_Blazer: Genevieve Marie: Blue_Blazer: [t3.gstatic.com image 258x195]


Please do not associate one of my favorite bands with Fark Politics, lest you make me sad.

My bad, I love Tool as well; it was a highly appropriate and apolitical usage.

Or I could just go with:

Come down get off your farkin' cross, we need the farking space to nail the next fool martyr.



Excellent.
 
2012-11-04 02:12:13 AM

austin_millbarge: The Great EZE: austin_millbarge: The Great EZE: If Obama wins Virginia (which is likely right now) this is all for naught. I'm more than happy with Obama winning Tuesday 285-235 (or 276-244 if Colorado acts up) with the rest of November's news being dedicated to how Republican officials tried to steal an election...and failed.

Some early indications it might not even get to Virginia or Ohio as the tipping point state. Florida is still very much in play for Obama and some whispers that their GOTV program in NC is really hitting on all cylinders.

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any citations on that? Or at least a couple of compelling anecdotes?

/Doesn't see Florida in the cards this year.
//Though the Fox News "Uh..." moment in 2008 was priceless.

I've read a few articles online this weekend that indicate NC and FLA early voting favors O very heavily.
It's late and I'm too tired to go back and try to find them. It's not worth betting the house on but i found it interesting nonetheless.


Even my Florida GOP facebook friends were posting data about how Florida early voting turnout is skewing democratic by a fairly decent margin. One thing I saw estimated that given the early voting party disparity, Romney would have to get 55% of the votes cast on election day in order to win Florida, and I just don't see that happening.
 
2012-11-04 02:33:04 AM
Please move forward to the front of the line to collect your tinfoil hat and jar of self-importance.
 
2012-11-04 02:37:26 AM
I was hoping there was an actual leopard guarding the box. Oh well.
 
2012-11-04 04:10:55 AM
The more I read about U.S. elections, U.S. electoral law and what certain parties do to influence the outcome in their favor, the more the U.S. reminds me of certain "democratic" states in the former U.S.S.R.
 
2012-11-04 04:21:41 AM

dustman81: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?

He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.


OK you guys are really starting to scare me. I voted for Obama via absentee ballot about a week ago. I provided both my Ohio DL # and the last 4 of my SS #. Yes, the form is filled out correctly. Is there some way that ass Husted can invalidate my vote? It's bad enough that Hamilton County (Cincinnati) has the damned voting machines that one of Romney's companies owns and now this...
 
2012-11-04 04:24:11 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: Let's see, possible ways to invalidate:

1. Long shot but since I dealt with this at work last week: Newlywed. Had a new license with her new last name. Hadn't updated her social security card yet. So the last 4 digits wouldn't match her name necessarily. Invalid, probably.

2. "ONE". If you write your last 4 SSN # down and for good measure also write in your driver's license, is that invalid? Technically, you did too much.

3. It's essentially an Election ID law, especially since people who are going to be required to fill out provisional ballots are far, far more likely to be the *exact* same demographics Republicans have been working SO F--KING HARD to disenfranchise already.

4. Election workers aren't allowed to help people fill out the form? COME ON. That's just f--king blatant right there. It's not a goddamn ballot. The newlywed I mentioned can't ask a worker if her recent name change but admittedly belated trip to the SSA will make a difference?

5. What if someone has an expired license? Even if it was issued to that person, and even if I doubt the state repeats numbers, would that invalidate it? What if they don't drive anymore and haven't had to show non-expired ID since it expired and they just didn't notice? (Read: Elderly and Poor, two groups that probably haven't had to give IDs for an I-9, who probably don't get IDed if they buy a bottle of wine, who probably can't afford to pay to renew a license or to even get to the office to do so - and if they don't need it, why spend the money, etc.)

And most importantly,

DamnYankees: This is a pointless roadblock who's only reasonable purpose is to disenfranchise voters. Whether you think its really easy to overcome really isn't the issue - would you be ok with a law that said you can only vote if you do 5 jumping jacks first, or sign an affivadit saying you are physically unable to do so? I mean, that would be EASY to comply with, but I hope you'd agree its farking insane and the only possible re ...


Damn... I put my Ohio DL# and last 4 of my SS#. Do you seriously think they will toss my vote over that?

Some heads need to roll over this.
 
2012-11-04 04:30:42 AM

turbocucumber: The more I read about U.S. elections, U.S. electoral law and what certain parties do to influence the outcome in their favor, the more the U.S. reminds me of certain "democratic" states in the former U.S.S.R.


Great analysis. I'm sure you have personal examples of other countries with better election processes right?
 
2012-11-04 08:27:36 AM

skullkrusher:
I don't see the point of the directive nor the outrage over it


If you don't see the point of it then perhaps you should ask yourself why it is so important that the Ohio SoS is rolling it out in a hurry three days before the election.

Best case (least corrupt) scenario: this law neeedlessly creates two sets of acceptance criteria for ballots. If you think that counting ballots to two standards, one of which was introduced a few days before the election, won't result in counting errors then I've got a bridge to sell you.
 
2012-11-04 08:40:51 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Filling out that form is a "burden"?


Many of these provisional ballots have already been submitted, right? So, this decision invalidates the ballots of people who now have no chance to set things right.
 
2012-11-04 08:45:36 AM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Please move forward to the front of the line to collect your tinfoil hat and jar of self-importance.


So, getting one's vote counted is not important?
 
2012-11-04 10:39:21 AM
I hope Hustad is developing ulcers from his anti-democracy hijinxs. I somehow doubt he has the requisite conscience, but one can hope.

/also DIAF
 
2012-11-04 11:32:40 AM

Soulcatcher: dustman81: skullkrusher: DamnYankees: skullkrusher: isn't this form new to the directive? How will it impact previously cast votes?

Who said it will cast previously cast votes? Nothing in his post indicated that.

I am trying to figure out the issue here. Seriously, this is the GOP rigging the election in Ohio? By making someone check out a box on their form if and only if they chose not to fill in their last 4 digits of their SSN or their license ID? That there is going to be some confusion about checking a farking box and this confusion will have the impact of rigging the election for the GOP?

He also started requiring this 3 days before voting ends, when early voting (including provisionals) have been happening since October 2nd. His last minute ruling would cause thousands of otherwise legimate votes to be thrown out.

OK you guys are really starting to scare me. I voted for Obama via absentee ballot about a week ago. I provided both my Ohio DL # and the last 4 of my SS #. Yes, the form is filled out correctly. Is there some way that ass Husted can invalidate my vote? It's bad enough that Hamilton County (Cincinnati) has the damned voting machines that one of Romney's companies owns and now this...


Absentee ballots are treated differently than provisional ballots, and are not affected at all by this ruling. Unless some additional shenanigans come up, your vote is safe and will be counted on election day.
 
2012-11-04 11:53:58 AM
Why do people even bother explaining this to the trolls who pretend to not understand that changing voting rules 3 days before the election, on a Sunday, is wrong? They're farking retards and not worth your time or effort. If it matters to you so much, you should be calling your local campaign office and asking how you can help them get more people to the polls.
 
2012-11-04 12:49:48 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Traitors fighting against American citizens.

Beat the shiat out of them.

 
Displayed 50 of 201 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report