Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plain Dealer: 16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga County Crossed Over & Voted Dem:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:53 PM
Original message
Plain Dealer: 16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga County Crossed Over & Voted Dem:
Thanks for Algorem who posted this Plain Dealer article in LBN:

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary

Source: Plain Dealer

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary

Sunday, March 09, 2008
Amanda Garrett
Plain Dealer Reporter

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.


Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party...

-snip
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/ba...


Ohio GOP roots for Hillary
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | HWILKINSON@ENQUIRER.COM
E-mail | Print | digg us! | del.icio.us!
One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.

It is a belief that the Clinton campaign says is wrong-headed and they will campaign across the state for the next three weeks making the argument that their battle-tested, experienced candidate is the only one who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee this fall.

-snip

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200...


http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3513.19


(B) When the right of a person to vote is challenged upon the ground set forth in division (A)(3) of this section, membership in or political affiliation with a political party shall be determined by the persons statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.




I

An Obama-Hater for Clinton, Temporarily
BY JASON HOROWITZ | MARCH 5, 2008 | TAGS: POLITICSBARACK OBAMAHILLARY CLINTONOHIO

Meet Todd Appelbaum, a 46-year-old from Columbus, who wore a shirt that says Osama for Obama to the Clinton campaigns election-night event in Ohio last night.
The white t-shirt, with an image of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb, is adorned with a blue Hillary Clinton button, although Appelbaum is not what one would call a real Hillary Clinton supporter.
I voted for Hillary today, he said, because Im concerned that, God forbid, Barack Obama will beat McCain. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

http://www.observer.com/2008/obama-hater-clinton-tempor...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. LOL - GOP votes for O show how he can expand party - if for Hill they are a plot - while 200000 GOP

Texas emails saying vote for Obama and GOP stickers that say Vote Obama - bury Hillary are not discussed in the media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No-one crossed over for Obama to bury Hillary.
But the opposite was true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Rrrrrrrrr....ight :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. The conservative Cincinnati Enquirer ran an article "OH GOP ROOTS FOR HILLARY"
Read it in the OP.

HERE IT WAS IT SAYS:

One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.



It is a belief that the Clinton campaign says is wrong-headed and they will campaign across the state for the next three weeks making the argument that their battle-tested, experienced candidate is the only one who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee this fall.

COUPLE THIS WITH THE PUSH FROM LIMBAUGH AND IN OHIO BILL CUNNINGHAM-BOTH REPUBLICANS. They can't come out and say Vote for Hillary-it will help Republicans but they can dish out disengenous support for her despite their former blatant hatred of her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. And media coverage has not been pro-Obama in what state? on what station?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I seem to remember the GOP supposedly cheering for Dean.
While they were doing everything they could to torpedo his candidacy, with the help of a weak willed Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. The Obama surrogates don't want facts. Just fantasy so they can explain away his loss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ohio Democratic voters prefer Clinton to Obama
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/ohio_democrat...

voters in Ohio and 52 - 36 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania. These are the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll's first surveys in this election cycle of Ohio and Pennsylvania likely voters, a more select group than the wider range of registered voters surveyed in prior polls.

In each state, voters see the economy, not the war in Iraq, as the most important issue.

"Despite her losing streak, Sen. Clinton remains far ahead of Sen. Obama among likely Democratic primary voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Measuring the Limbaugh Effect

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/measuring... /

Mr. Obama actually won among Texas Republicans, who made up nearly twice as much of the voters in the Democratic primary as they did in 2004, at 9 percent, and 53 percent of them went for Mr. Obama, according to voter surveys by Edison/Mitofsky. In Ohio, where Republicans participated at similarly increased rates in the Democratic contest, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both received 49 percent of the G.O.P. vote.

Mrs. Clinton won the Ohio primary 54.3 percent to Mr. Obamas 44 percent, and she took the Texas vote with 50.9 percent to 47.4 percent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. LIKELY VOTERS = voted in past election (OH had huge disenfranchised population
and this failed to count young and new voters who came out for Obama.

nice try-Look the OSU ELECTION LAW professors are not biased, but reported the same as I state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Nice try? That is an election analysis report with link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. HERE'S SOME LINKS FOR YOU:
I wrote at great length during the 2004 campaign about the Gallup likely voter model and the shortcomings identified by critics. The short version is that while this model produces a lot of questionable variation when applied months before an election, as well as results that differ from other likely voter models, its track record is strong when applied the the last survey before the election.

-- Mark Blumenthal
December 21, 2007
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/nh_the_gallup_likely_vote...

One important limitation: The Pew study involved a low-turnout, off-year mayoral election, where the difference between the size of the electorate and the pool of registered voters was large. In a high turnout presidential elections in which 80% or more of registered voters cast ballots, there is typically less difference between registered and likely voters.




AGAIN AF AM VOTERS IN OHIO WERE ADVERSELY EFFECTED BY DISENFRANCHISEMENT -I refer you to Conyers and the House Judiciary Democratic Staff's "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong In Ohio" for more documentation on this:

Preserving Democracy:
What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

Wednesday 05 January 2005

Executive Summary




First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."
Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.
Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."
Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.
We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.
There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.
There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker error may have led to little known thirdparty candidates receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete):

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.
Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects of the recount.
The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

-SNIP
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

ALSO IT LEAVES OFF NEWLY REGISTERED VOTERS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. and don't forget this smear on the eve of the election:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. And that was debunked! Keep up please!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Here's the latest on NAFTA. Only proves Olberman isn't neutral and jumped the gun.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNMJKvj5e...
PMO: Canadian officials only got briefing from Obama campaign - not Clinton

2 days ago

OTTAWA Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. LATEST FROM FACTCHECK.ORG:
Update, March 7: The following material was added after our original story appeared.

Wednesday, March 5: The Canadian Press news agency reports that the whole controversy originated with a remark to several journalists by the prime minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie. He allegedly said that a representative of the Clinton campaign had called the Canadian embassy in D.C. to say her anti-NAFTA comments shouldn't be taken at face value.
The Canadian Press: "Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room. "He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. ... That someone called us and told us not to worry."
No details of the alleged Clinton contact were given, and while the anonymous source said several people heard the comment, no one else was quoted in the story.

Earlier, Canadian Prime Minister Harper announced that he had asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of the leaked memo mentioning Goolsbees visit.

Source: Alexander Panetta, "'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff," The Canadian Press 5 March 2008.

Thursday, March 6: The Canadian Press quotes Brodie saying he doesn't recall specifically mentioning Clinton or Obama to reporters.
The Canadian Press: Brodie says he doesn't recall specifically mentioning Clinton or Obama, but he has not denied the rest of the conversation.
Harpers press secretary, Sandra Buckler, tells The New York Times:
Press Secretary Buckler: Ian Brodie is alleged to have made an offhand comment about a rumor to a reporter. He does not recall saying it.
Meanwhile, Harper tells the House of Commons that the investigation will cover persons in the prime ministers own office, though he does not mention Brodie by name.
Prime Minister Harper: We're going to investigate this entire matter and take whatever action is deemed to be necessary based on the facts that we are able to discover.
Source: Alexander Panetta, "Harper widens NAFTA-gate probe to include his own office" The Canadian Press 6 March 2008.

Ian Austin, "Trade Pact Controversy in Democratic Race Reaches Into Canadian Parliament," New York Times 7 March 2008.


-by Brooks Jackson and Viveca Novak
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_facts_about...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. WHAT FALSE RUMOR WAS USED ON THE EVE OF AN ELECTION?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. The news report was fri the 7th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I provided the latest from FACTCHECK.ORG-Misinformation used by Clinton on Eve of Primary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The River Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. The GOP Clearly Think McCain Can Beat Her
in the GE.
Why else would they want her to win?

Thom Hartman was reporting the other day
that more than a dozen Texas Counties has 0 (Zero)
Republican votes cast for McCain.
Lone Star Freepers, following Rush's advice, must have had to "swallow hard"
to cast a vote for someone they've been taught to hate for 15 years.


No more "open primaries"! period
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. nope - premiss is wrong - GOP per friend in GOP want Obama to win - media is waiting
until it is certain - then the "fun" begins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. WTF?
Why would even post this crap?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snarkoleptic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. "Why would even post this crap?"(sic)
There are three possible reasons that I would post such a thing-
A) I'm an Obamabot
B) It's important to know your enemy and Limpballs is pushing hard for Hillary because the 'pukes would rather not run vs. Obama
or
C) Both of the above are correct

If you're a Hillary supporter, it's time to "get the net".
She can't win and she's worsening our chances of taking back the WH....do the math here.
http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter /
Worst yet, if McCan't becomes POTUS, the SCOTUS is in jeopardy of another turn to the right.
Is this really a good time to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the tactics of the RW?
I think not.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Nicely done.
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 12:21 AM by BleedingHeartPatriot
Insulting, arrogant and condescending, the trifecta.

I remember your posts from way back. I already know your M.O. and can now happily put you ignore. I was waiting for you, I know it was a matter of time.

My fourth and currently only ignore. :hi:

On edit, I checked my ignore list and found out I HAVE ignored before. So, now, you're the sole occupant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
6. K&R'd
Important story here, yes? We should find out if any laws were broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
7. EVEN OSU ELECTION LAW STATED CONCERN:
FROM OSU ELECTION LAW:

Cross-over voting under Ohio law

March 4, 2008

Edward B. Foley
Director, Election Law @ Moritz
Robert M. Duncan/Jones Day Designated Professor of Law
Moritz College of Law


Blogs at both the Plain Dealer and Dispatch are reporting Republican cross-over votes in the Democratic candidate for Senator Clinton on the ground that she would be an easier nominee for Senator McCain to beat. It is unclear how widespread this phenomenon is and whether, if calculable, could make a difference in either the statewide total popular vote or the awarding of delegates between Senators Clinton and Obama. There is also the question whether it is legal, and if not, whether it is remediable in any way.

Although it is widely reported that Ohio permits Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary (and vice versa), that is not technically true. Ohio law does permit voters to switch party affiliation on the day of the primary, but it has a rather awkward mechanism that attempts to ascertain that the switch is sincereand to prevent insincere party-raiding of the kind that (as described above) is being reported today.

Section 3513.19 of the Ohio Revised Code states that it is the duty of poll workers in Ohio to challenge the right of person to vote in a particular partys primary if a poll worker doubts the persons eligibility based on the ground (among others) that the person is "not affiliated with or is not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote. The same section further specifies that the poll worker is to determine the voters previous party affiliation by examining the voting records of the past two years. If those records show the voter to be a Republican, for example, then before giving the voter a Democratic ballot in the current primary, the statute then directs the poll worker to have the voter sign a statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.

This statement is supposed to be the test of the voters sincerity in switching party affiliation. Section 3513.20 of the Code make clear that a voter who refuses to sign the statement is to receive a provisional rather than regular ballot. Indeed, even if the voter is willing to sign the statement, but the majority of poll workers at the precinct believe the voter is not sincere in switching parties, then the poll workers are to give the voter a provisional rather than regular ballot.

-snip
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/freefair/articles....

From the Warren County BOE (Warren is a Republican stronghold outside of Cincinnati where the faux "Level 10 Homeland Security shutdown of the BOE occurred in 2004) web page and found that the democrats voted at 223% of the total Dems in the county. Some turnout!

BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL 57,396
REGISTERED VOTERS - DEMOCRATIC 12,440
REGISTERED VOTERS - REPUBLICAN 41,377
BALLOTS CAST - REPUBLICAN 28,683
BALLOTS CAST - DEMOCRATIC 27,855
source: warren county BOE http://snipurl.com/212z3



Ohio GOP roots for Hillary
BY HOWARD WILKINSON | HWILKINSON@ENQUIRER.COM
One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.

Her name is Hillary Clinton, and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.



It is a belief that the Clinton campaign says is wrong-headed and they will campaign across the state for the next three weeks making the argument that their battle-tested, experienced candidate is the only one who can go toe-to-toe with John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee this fall.

Shell need to do some convincing, fast. For Clinton, Ohios March 4 primary is looking more and more critical.

-snip

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200...







Tuesday, March 4

Don't Call Ohio Too Soon
That's my advice to the news media tonight, in the event of a close Democratic primary. As returns start to come in from Ohio this evening, we should keep in mind circumstances that will probably result in more outstanding ballots on Election Night than in other states, and maybe even more than is typical for Ohio. If that's true, a margin that appears insurmountable on paper -- even with all precincts nominally reported -- may actually be smaller than it appears.

Here are the big things that might cause there to be a large number of yet-to-be-counted ballots than usual on election night:

- Provisional Ballots. Ohio heavily relies on provisional ballots, which are used for people who've moved, who don't have required ID, and whose names don't appear on the registration list when they go to vote, among other things. Most of us probably remember the delay in calling the 2004 election, when Bush led Kerry by some 136,000 votes with approximately 158,000 provisional ballots left to be verified and counted. When these ballots were eventually counted, they cut Bush's margin by about 18,000 votes. In November 2006, an even higher percentage of Ohio voters cast provisional ballots, over 3%. In light of Ohio's new ID rules, still not completely familiar to many voters, and potential problems with its statewide registration list, we can expect lots of provisionals today as well. Voters have 10 days after the election to bring in their information, and it will be a while after that before we know how many of the provisionals will be counted and who they're cast for.

- Residual Votes. These are ballots that don't register a valid vote, at least when they're run through automatic tabulators. They include undervotes (a ballot that doesn't register a choice) and overvotes (a ballot that registers more than the allowed number of choices). Both can sometimes result from ambiguous marks with paper-based voting systems, but some of the undervotes may be recoverable through a manual recount. Under Ohio law, a ballot on which a voter circles the candidates name or makes a mark with an instrument that can't be recognized by tabulating equiment should eventually be counted. As I explained in Sunday's post, we can expect a significant number of residual votes in Ohio today, because a large number of voters will be voting with central-count optical scan equipment that doesn't allow voters to check for mistakes before casting their votes. Cuyahoga County will be especially hard hit, but other counties will also be affected given that voters in touchscreen counties are allowed to vote a paper ballot on request. If the race winds up being tight, it will be important to know how many residual votes there are -- especially in the Cleveland area.

-SNIP
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2008/03/dont-call...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. "Unclear how widespread this phenomenon is"
As in, it's a Republican fantasy to explain their painfully low turnout numbers.

Here's a good way to check the truth of it: How's McCain's FUNDRAISING going? Did all those defectors kick in some cash to the Republicans? Or NOT?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Republicans don't want to believe people are fleeing their party.
This is how they rationalize their poor turnout numbers for fundraising purposes: NOT that people see their party and candidate as losers, but that they are working hard to get the right candidate to face their man so he can coast easily to victory. So all those people who didn't vote for McCain are really really really going to return in November and vote him into office. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Trust Obama people to implicitly believe desperate Republican spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-09-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
25. Election Falsification is a Class 5 Felony.
If you wish to switch party affiliations, you will be given a form, either Form 10-X or Form 10-W, which you must fill out and sign.

Ohio Revised Code 3513.20 states:


Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election , the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets...


"Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree. A person that commits election falsification can face six to twelve months in prison as well as a $2,500 fine"


Ironically, convicted felons lose their right to vote.

Unfortunately, pollworker training on this issue was spotty, to say the least. Many polling places did not enforce this by bothering with the forms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillORightsMan Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
30. My note to SoS Brunner
I just HAD to write SoS Brunner...


Well it looks like another TRAIN WRECK hit Ohio on March 4th, with GOP voting "Dem for a Day" throughout the state, polling places closing up shop early "because of the weather" despite a judge's ruling, paper ballots running out in many polling places and a contributing factor of disallowing PRECINCT BALLOT SCANNERS (of ill-repute either way) in Cuyahoga County.

Meanwhile, 56 of 88 counties DESTROYED EVIDENCE from Election 2004 despite a FEDERAL JUDGE'S ORDER yet not a peep out of the SOS or AG Office, when IN FACT these people SHOULD BE PROSECUTED to the fullest extent of Federal Law. Then, on top of THAT, the OH GOP BoE members had a secret "closed" meeting, a Dem Central Committee member was DENIED ACCESS and THERE IS NO PUBLIC RECORD from this SECRET GOP PUBLIC ELECTIONS OFFICIALS meeting.

HOW MUCH LAW BREAKING will be tolerated by the Ohio Secretary of State and the Ohio Attorney General? When will these issues be resolved (and prosecuted)?

Brunner ran on a campaign of "Open Government" and "cleaning up our elections system" yet has done little to correct misdeeds of previous elections and seem to be disinterested in wholesale changes to open Ohio elections procedures and HOLDING THOSE ACCOUNTABLE for past crimes.

How many more BOGUS ELECTIONS does Ms. Brunner expect to conduct under the guise of "Open and Fair" elections? What's next? Another poll tax under the guise of "voter fraud prevention"?

In Violation of Federal Law, Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election Records Are Destroyed or Missing
http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/?page=1

ODP Visits Secret GOP Election Machine Meeting
http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/davehar...

Howard Dean Guest-hosts Topic With Tina Brown
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Dean_Host_TopicA_Aug8_2004....


I HIGHLY DOUBT any prosecutions will be pursued on GOPher crossovers in Ohio.

Write Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner here
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/ContactUs.aspx?Code=default

/rant

imbillorightsmanandiapprovethismessage
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC