Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Velvet Revolution Calls on CA Secretary of State to Investigate Prop 8 Vote!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:41 PM
Original message
Velvet Revolution Calls on CA Secretary of State to Investigate Prop 8 Vote!
(X-post from GLBT forum)

Velvet Revolution Calls on CA Secretary of State to Investigate Prop 8 Vote!

Did you experience or witness election problems that could have affected the outcome of the Prop 8 vote? Possibly targeted disenfranchisement? Irregularities at the polling place? Voter intimidation? Etc.?

"We ... call for Secretary of State Debra Bowen to initiate an investigation into the results of the Proposition 8 election, based on concerns raised by voters, election monitors and election integrity advocates."
(snip)

"We ask that anyone who has bona fide information relevant to such an investigation submit it to Debra Bowen's office by Monday, November 24, 2008 if at all possible, so that an investigation can be launched immediately. Complaints about individuals' experiences while voting or monitoring the election are encouraged. Please use the official complaint form, which is available for download in several languages, and follow the outlined procedure. ... If you cannot submit your complaint by Monday, November 24, please submit it as soon after that date as possible."
(snip)

We're also asking that people who file complaints send a copy to Velvet Revolution (email info(at)standingforvoters.org). (StandingForVoters.org is a project of Velvet Revolution.)

More at link
Refresh | +9 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
diva77 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. and while they're at it, I wish they would investigate the results of Prop. 11
I don't trust those results!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. If you've got anything about irregularities re: prop 11, submit it!
Some of what is being submitted regarding Prop 8 would also apply to an investigation of 11, if you or someone else has reason to call for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
diva77 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I was a pollworker in my precinct and a whopping 10% had to vote provisionally
and the voters themselves told me that they had submitted their registration just under the deadline. That tells me that the REGISTRAR IS THE CAUSE OF SUPPRESSING MASSIVE NUMBERS OF VOTES simply by not processing applications in time. There must be some sort of legal precedent somewhere that addresses this -- if not, I think that the registrar MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, and as part of that, that each provisional vote should be hand counted before they certify the results of Prop. 11. With the results so close - apparently 50.9% in favor versus 49.1% against, I believe the narrow margin warrants going after a recount.

county results here:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000011.ht...

I wish I had time to pursue this. If anyone else can possibly go after this, it is really a flagrant attempt to turn CA red -- we should NOT have redistricting done in the manner put forth by Prop. 11.

here is a previous post explaining partly why Prop. 11 is BAD!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. A registration deadline two weeks before an election could also be a factor.
I guess with such a late date...and the availability of provisional balloting...the idea was that a maximum number of voters could be included. And it could be argued that it worked.

Another way to look at this is the system was weighed down by the strain of the number of people who waited just weeks before a very important election to register.

Here we have VR reduced to begging people to come forward with possible fraud stories because so far there isn't much of a case to make for one. Of course, there could have been massive breakdowns, or simple programming errors, but we don't count those possibilities since they don't jive well with the "FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD", "KKKARL ROVE is behind the curtain", and the "Bring your checkbook and we'll SPOON(you)A(little)MORE", mantras.

I know a lot of folks want the registrars head. I'm saving my ALL CAPS for the time being.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
diva77 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It is terrible for even a single person to be deprived of voting on a regular
ballot; to have one in ten people who met a deadline and did everything by the rules deprived is, to me, an outrage worthy of all caps. I know you're careful and likely to use all caps judiciously. For me, I find 10% intolerable, and inexcusable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. What were they deprived of? n/t

:shrug:

And do you know for a fact that they all, indeed, made the registration deadline?


http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_provisional.h...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Then you need election-day registration.
Until then, you need to have provisional ballots. And it's the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The investigation we're requesting isn't limited to fraud
Not sure why you say "we don't count those possibilities" of "massive breakdowns or simple programming errors."

Nowhere has VR said that we think any investigation of any election should be limited to fraud. All irregularities should be investigated, regardless of whether they are suspected to be intentional or unintentional.

The reward VR is offering is specifically related to fraud. That's because we want election criminals to be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I guess I got all caught up in the VR sub-headline:
VR offers $100K reward for info leading to arrest and conviction of election fraud affecting the outcome of Prop 8

Same difference though. Offer the $ for fraud arrest and conviction, but not for any other possible, even likely, cause of an erroneous election result. Hell of a message, IMO. And that's without discussing the reward limited to overturning one race in particular. Do you guys need a PR person?

Then, the story asks Bowen..."to initiate an investigation into the results of the Proposition 8 election, based on concerns raised by voters, election monitors and election integrity advocates..." without suggesting what concerns have been raised. "More explosive evidence", perhaps? Maybe Spoonamore should tell us again that it's actually possible to hack a voting machine. :eyes:

Meanwhile, the CA audit, if properly implemented, would be sufficient to catch a problem...essentially neutralizing the poster child excuse for all the drama.

With such an approach at least no one could ever be accused of being an insider.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
diva77 Donating Member (999 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "if properly implemented" - there's the rub; citizens in LA have been trying
to observe procedures and notify personnel in the Registrar's office when there are problems, unfortunately, the registrar uses tactics such as instructing personnel to not speak to citizen observers, and on other occasions, such as L & A testing, shutting down the observation process and calling the sheriffs when citizens started asking questions. Why all the drama directed against citizens trying to claim their legal right to observe?

Unfortunately, It is a far-reaching assumption to expect everything to be done according to code, i.e. "properly implemented" by the registrar. Also, the mystery of the central tabulator actually being GEMS II rather than MTS, and the fact that it's got an internet connection should all be investigated.

Alerting the public of possible problems with the election results is a good thing and I applaud VR for keeping on top of these issues -- the ballots are only kept around for so long and the security of those ballots is more questionable with each passing day.

Gee Wilms, you sound like you're running for Bd of Supes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-24-08 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Then feel free to report THAT.

When I consider some of the rhetoric it's no surprise that election officials don't want certain citizens around. I don't know the specifics here and I doubt they're angels, but it wouldn't surprise me that they don't want to talk with people who accuse them of practicing election fraud, and voter suppression when in fact they may be merely overwhelmed by a system WE ourselves argue is overwhelming.

If citizen observers are observing laws be broken I think someone to contact is Lowell Finley.

Torches and pitchforks are great for a rally, and not much else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. K and R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'm glad VR asked for volunteers to monitor post-election procedures.
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/electionstrikeforce/2008...

Bowen probably needs support in reeling in recalcitrant county officials.

There's supposed to be a 1% audit with mandatory reporting and escalations. That's about 250 precincts.

To reverse an outcome with a margin of 4%, you'd have to shift 20% of the vote in about 1,250 precincts--more votes in fewer precincts; less votes in more precincts. The chance of finding at least one is damn near close to 100% with a 1% manually tally.

That's what what I'm told, anyhow.

(.pdf) http://verifiedvoting.org/downloads/TAS_paper.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. AND there's a mandatory 100% manual count of DRE 'paper trails'
Really a pain to count those things, too. It'd be way easier to count -- what do you call those old-fangled things? -- oh yeah, BALLOTS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Here are the procedures that are supposed to be followed...
Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 02:06 AM by Bill Bored
...for the 1% manual tally:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/ttbr/pos...

Note that full recounts are possible if there are large enough discrepancies, and the precincts have to be selected at _random_.

Observers should see that these procedures are followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Any observer who sees that these are not being followed should file a complaint
Sometimes election workers act like their deviance from these procedures is not a big deal. But the procedures are in place for a reason, usually a good reason, like secure chain of custody or accurate counting. One "apparently no big deal" break in the chain of custody can provide the opportunity nefarious players need to go along with their means and motive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-23-08 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wonderful news! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | 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 Sat Aug 30th 2014, 02:23 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