Killing a Zombie Lie: Where did all the Republican Votes in Bridgeport go?

"The American Thinker"? (0.00 / 0)

This reminds me of that comment that by reading that conservative blog, one can find out what people who don't think are thinking.

Of course, the writer fails to point out that the number of ballots was far too small for the number of voters who wanted to vote, that only a few hundred people came back after the voting hours were extended to cast votes, and that the number of Democratic votes was suppressed far more than Republican.  So the Democratic vote would have been far higher had the registrars of voters supplied a reasonable number of ballots, and that more Democrats would have voted than Republicans anyway.  Curious how conservatives like they are so willing to ignore reality in order to squeeze their narratives into their ideological mindsets.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 15:12:21 PM UTC

In fairness to the Republicans... (0.00 / 0)

It was weird how the announced count, (Wednesday), was something like 19,500 Malloy votes to 6500 for Foley.

And then the final total on Friday morning became approx. 18,000 to 4100.

How did the Republican total shrink? If I were on their side, I'd want an explanation.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Mon Nov 15, 2010 at 20:13:51 PM UTC

What about the pre vs. post 8 pm votes? (0.00 / 0)

I read one news piece in which Susan B said that there were "only about 500 ballots" (I thought, not votes) cast after 8 pm.  Then later, I think it was ROV Ayala said that there were only 57 ballots post-8 pm.  Nobody ever followed up (reporters) and I saw no explanation of the different totals.  It seems inevitable that inquiring minds will want to know at some point why the gap between those two numbers, or whether either of them is in fact accurate  -- (c) other is also possible).

One way to make crystal clear which ballots were cast during regular voting hours and which were not would be to use provisional ballots.

IN fact, federal HAVA law states that where a federal race is involved, any votes cast in extended hours must be cast on provisional ballots.  If moderators did do this, I missed reading it.

116 STAT. 1708 PUBLIC LAW 107-252-OCT. 29, 2002
(F) general information on Federal and State laws
regarding prohibitions on acts of fraud and misrepresentation.
(c) VOTERS WHO VOTE AFTER THE POLLS CLOSE.-Any individual
who votes in an election for Federal office as a result of
a Federal or State court order or any other order extending the time established for closing the polls by a State law in effect 10 days before the date of that election may only vote in that election by casting a provisional ballot under subsection (a). Any such ballot cast under the preceding sentence shall be separated
and held apart from other provisional ballots cast by those not affected by the order.

It seems it would be quite easy to confuse and intermingle pre and post 8 pm photocopied ballots, especially if -- as was reported -- the judge's order to stay open till 10 pm did not each some polling places until after 8 pm.  With identical ballots and a non-routine procedures to be followed or improvised based on a judge's order, it's seems much easier for mistakes to be made.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 03:26:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Via CTNJ: A dozen Bridgport precincts to be audited, (0.00 / 0)

as part of the normal, post-election statewide audit.

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ct...

For the sake of everyone, let's hope the B'port numbers withstand outside scrutiny. What happened two weeks ago was bad enough.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 04:18:39 AM UTC

What outside scrutiny? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not willing to hear the word "audit" without understanding exactly what is meant by that. The audit law is specifically designed  with the goal of finding out if the machines functioned properly.  Poor conduct of audits thwarts any meaningful results in many cases,but you can't use a law about machine function to find out if e.g. ballots were stuffed.

Much as I wish CT's audit law could resolve questions of election administration integrity,  is not designed - nor should it be conflated with -- efforts to ensure election integrity or accuracy.  It's a (fairly mickey mouse) method intended to figure out the relatively narrow question as to whether the machines functioned properly on election night.

To use that law to call for other types of ballot recounts would be like reading a motorcycle manual to find out if you had any redress if the brakes failed.

And outside scrutiny?  I'm not aware of any, despite the SOTS's brother in law's letters to Kevin Kane (chief states' attorney) and the US attorney requesting they  look into the elections.  Since the statutes provide for SEEC, or a judge, to respond to election problems, I sometimes wonder if we've seen too much studio wrestling and it's affecting how we do things.  Is the GOP really serious about following up?  And why is Ross Garber not recusing himself from involvement in this case, due to his relationship with one of the people whose actions might possibly be called into question?

The saying is, "Craziness is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result."  

Asking a town with repeated history of problems in the way they conduct elections and audits to audit itself  -- well, that just doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me.

Recall that nothing is arms length about the audits -- the audits are done often by the same election officials who turned in election results, and there is no on-site oversight or SEEC/SOTS election/audit SWAT team that comes in and iimpounds ballots  or restores order when the integrity or competency appears questionable.  Any "audit escalation" is done in an ad hoc, unpublished and pretty nontransparent way, by telephone from Hartford, after the fact if a "perfect match" is not reported.  

I'm all for MEANINGFUL examinations of what happened in Bridgeport, and we should make sure that we don't end up with a feel-good public confidence booster that in the end, MAY not really tell us much about what happened.

To be crass, if voters' worst fears came true and ballots of any type were stuffed in any of the precincts selected, recounting the votes cast on photocopies and comparing to reported totals for election photocopied vote counts won't show anything.  

For example, verifying the count of voters on the checklist would allow it to be compared and correlated to the overall cast ballot totals, as would verifying that nobody who voted absentee also voted in the election.

Has the SOTS contemplated and placed in her directive (has anyone seen that written directive?  It's required by law) what level of discrepancy would prompt what next action?

The public will benefit from SOTs's demonstrating that this is a well thought out directive with a clear reference to some statutory basis (at the very least, it cannot conflict with existing statutes), not one designed to prove that all is quiet in Sparkle City while obscuring or ducking the relevant questions.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Nov 16, 2010 at 15:11:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]