About that Greene thing...

[Jackpine Radical]

None of the explanations make very good sense. The available evidence strongly suggests rampant Dieboldery rather than something simple like mere voter ignorance or apathy.

I could accept that it was a simple Diebolding if it made any sense to do that. The Republican is going to win anyway, so why would they have done something this egregious?

I have a strange little half-baked hypothesis. I think maybe somebody who is sophisticated in electronic election rigging, who has maybe tried in the past to get people to pay attention to the problem, finally decided to make his point very clear by bringing about the world's craziest election result.

I can punch holes in my own theory, but it still makes (slightly) more sense than anything else I have read or thought of.

If I'm right, then something even weirder might happen this fall. The way to perfect the electoral fraud demonstration would be to go on to jigger the November election & put Greene into the Senate. THAT oughtta frost the nuts of both parties.

[jazzelle]

1. he is certainly different

SC Dem State Rep: I Do Not Believe Greene Is A Plant


Greene was at South Carolina ETV for an interview (which you can watch below). Todd Rutherford, another Democratic state representative who met with Greene today alongside Sellers, told TPMmuckraker, "Before I got to my third question, I could tell that something was awry," adding, "I don't know whether everything is OK."

Rutherford, an attorney, said that if Greene were his client, he would move for a mental evaluation. "If there's a joke he doesn't get the joke. If someone paid him to do this, they certainly exploited someone who is vulnerable. It's not even funny, it's just sad."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/sc_dem_state_rep_i_do_not_believe_greene_is_a_plan.php

[haele]

9. From what I saw of Green, what he's going through is akin to abuse like in the movie "Carrie"

He is so totally out of his league it's just plain mean to him. I hate to think of the mental damage this might do to him - there's only a few ways people who are undergoing that sort of mean trick react - and I don't think he'd be the type to take it as an adventure and be chill with being used like that.
It was so very painful watching him. Like watching a child being coxed into doing something embarassing or mildly painful that it doesn't understand just for someone else's laughs.

If it's a test run to see how people react to an obvious stealing of an election, they really ought to have used any one of the litter of snot-nosed young republican types who would eagerly play spoiler. I'm sure they could have found one or two Liberty University MBAs "of color" instead of this Alvin Green.

Haele

[David in Canada]

17. See below...

Please read my post below.

Also, just because Greene filed means he was put up to it. Maybe he just wanted to run and saved up his cash to be on the ballot? He met all the prerequisite criteria (30 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least 7 years and a resident of South Carolina). Furthermore, he was a registered Democrat and paid the $10,400 filing fee. The filing fee is high in order to discourage novelty candidates but he still was able to save the money and paid the required fee. Furthermore, the South Carolina Democratic Party ACCEPTED his cheque and then sent his name to the election authorities to be placed on the ballot. Since the party chairperson, Carol Fowler, thinks he is so unqualified, why did she accept his cheque AND why did she place his name and picture on the state party website?

What is sad is some guy who just wanted to make a quixotic run for office saved his money to do so and because of Vic Rawl's incompetence, won by a fluke and now they want to boot the duly elected nominee even after he played by the rules. At the least, if they thought he was unworthy to carry the Democratic banner in November, they could have refused his cheque in the first place and told him to buzz off instead of taking his $10,400 and just assuming he'd lose.

[CreekDog]

20. You are making more as many assumptions with your theory as the ones you question

if you saw the interview, the guy doesn't even seem to want to be Senator.

[jazzelle]

23. He was pretty....uninspiring...to say the least.

i'd be surprised he even voted....for himself.

[David in Canada]

34. True...

It did seem that Mr. Greene has no desire to be a U.S. Senator. Of course, appearances can be deceiving. For all we know, he struck up a conversation with someone and that someone made a snarky comment such as "Those politicians sure get a lot of women to screw them!"

Considering Mr. Greene's apparent sexual desires, perhaps he filed thinking that he would get women to like him if he were a politician.

There are many reasons that Mr. Greene could have decided to enter the fray. I see not why one must assume nefarious manipulation when just dumbass stupidity can easily explain his possible reasons to run. One does not need a good, or even decent, reason to run for something. After all, just look at all those people who filed in the 2003 California recall election.

[haele]

43. Most of the non-politician filings in the California Recall were joke filings -

Except for a very few (Gary Coleman comes to mind), most of the "average people" who filed knew they were only famous at home, and didn't really campaign. They just wanted to say they were on the ballot for Governor of California.
As for Arnold, he had been heavily involved with California politics and was already a name to run for Governor - or Senator in the Republican circles prior to the recall. Between his celebrity and his already acted on political ambitions, he wasn't a darkhorse to win.
Even now, the minority party members who file for the various positions in California government pretty much do so just for the ability to create recognition for their name or ideology. They don't "expect" to win - at least until they can start swinging enough party members to be able to make some headway beyond just under one or two percent of the vote on election day.

If all Mr. Green wanted to do when he filed was to say he was on the ballot, there has to be something more than "his name sounded good" for him to win - even in South Carolina. He would have had to have campaigned in some fashion - even bake sales at malls or town centers or even just flyers would have been appropriate. Rawl campaigned - even if it might have been "poorly", his name was out there. Green didn't campaign at all.
This is one of the reasons to be suspicions that there was some manipulation in the vote - especially since the absentee ballots went for Rawl and it appears that more votes than voters were cast for Mr. Green in Rawl's home district.

Not that DeMint would have been in much trouble even if Rawl had won the nomination, but this situation was way beyond the Cinderella story it appears to be.

Haele

[mitchum]

41. That's why Greene was particularly selected for this charade...

SC good ol' boys always enjoy a "good n----r joke"
It's one of their hallowed traditions.
Trust me; I have observed those pigs in their native habitat.

[Laelth]

2. I like your theory.

Assuming your theroy is correct, I hope the electronic election-rigger succeeds and brings about the complete abolition of electronic voting.

:dem:

-Laelth

[David in Canada]

35. I agree with you.

I believe that electronic voting should be abolished and actual paper ballots counted by hand would be best. Of course, using some kind of optical scan for counting the ballots (with a subsequent audit to check for errors) would be practical considering the United States uses the "long ballot" whereby elections for multiple offices are printed on a common ballot. Many nations, such as Canada, hold elections for only one office at a time. This greatly reduces the time necessary to count ballots.

The fact that electronic voting can give even the appearance of impropriety can besmirch a nominated or elected candidates mandate when elected. Having a regularly updated voter list whereby deceased persons are removed from the rolls and people are automatically enrolled when they turn 18 (or are naturalised, etc.) would also be improvements.

Many states, especially in the south, have antiquated elections systems that wouldn't pass OECD standards. Having elections where there is confidence in the process and where the winner can enjoy a mandate without it being besmirched with allegations of fraud should be the ideal aspired to.

That said, assuming Greene's victory is true chicanery and then removing him from the ballot (even though all the other duly elected nominees stay as is) without proof would be just plain wrong. If the party was willing to accept his cheque and put his picture on their website when they thought he had no chance, that should be that. If he and his cash was good enough when he was a quixotic also-ran, he is good enough now.

[Laelth]

42. Hear, hear! Well said. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Parker CA]

3. Maybe they're using a new voting method/machine with this guy as a test run

to see how effective it is. When it's a race in Nov. they'll have their plan locked down and ready to go. Seems like a trial run to me with a fool being played as the pawn.

[BeFree]

5. Yep

And look at the excuses already trying to explain away this phenomenon.

The same thing happened in the 2004 Kerry theft in North Carolina. The early vote was for Kerry and the final day votes flipped for bush.

Edited to add link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=170&topic_id=2562&mesg_id=2562

[David in Canada]

19. Better Education?

Democratic voters tend to be more erudite, more educated and have higher paying jobs than the average Republican. As such, they would be more likely to have jobs that require travel and thus, necessitate outside travel. Seniors (particularly those who grew up during the Depression) also tend to vote Democrat and are absentee voters do to health and transportation issues. They are also the most stalwart of voters and will nag their butts off, if necessary, to receive an absentee ballot.

The dynamics of voting is complex and depending on how one votes, or on election day, when one votes, can depend a lot on various socioeconomic factors. If one were to stand outside a polling station on election day and the polling station did not just serve one particular homogeneous neighborhood, you would see the blue collar voters and white collar voters showing up en masse at different times as well as housewives and working mothers, etc. Of course, there are exceptions (i.e. a few blue collar workers among a majority of people in line with a suit and tie) but a general trend would be apparent.

[David in Canada]

18. Well...

You are automatically ascribing malice to what can be reasonably attributed to stupidity.

It isn't like Vic Rawl was exactly a well known name himself. In the 6th District primary, where Jim Clyburn faced Gregory Brown, Clyburn won by 91-9. Of course, Clyburn in the Majority Whip and is well known and popular and Brown was basically a name on a ballot. If Rawl had so much as a small television ad buy in the weekend before the primary, he would have beaten Greene by at least a 3-1 margin.

Rawl just assumed that victory was assured despite the fact many outside Charleston County knew neither him nor Greene from any other Joe Schmo. If he had any sort of name recognition, even just enough for his name to 'ring a bell' in most voters minds, he would have won in a walk. In fact, having a name 'ring a bell' is what allows a large number of mediocre incumbents to continuously win re-election time after time.

[zeemike]

4. And then there is another theory.

That I have myself...that this is a pilot plant project....and with such a thing you take the worst case and put it up first to see if anyone challenges it....get it by the public attention and you can feel safe in expanding the production in the fall.
But then I am so cynical.

[Parker CA]

6. Totally agree and said as much in different words above your post. Seems too obvious not to be.

[zeemike]

11. Great minds think alike....n/t

[blondeatlast]

8. I had the "test run" thought as well. Post-Newt Gingrich politics

has a tendency to do that to intelligent people, I think.

With the tax-exempt think tanks running things, I don't put much past the dirty bastards.

[MinM]

7. Why waste $10,000.00???

This question has been posed in some of these Alvin Greene threads...

Q) Why spend $10,000.00 to sabotage a race you were going to win anyway?

A) To save Million$ you might have to spend in a legitimate race against a legitimate candidate. Frees up some more GOP cash for some of the tighter races around the country. :shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Plausible--sort of.

Makes as much sense as my notion, anyway.

[Gin]

12. as dumb as this idea is....too bad some person couldn't rig the system

for Greene to beat demint.....dumb...I know but would be good for shock value

[Jackpine Radical]

14. That's what I was suggesting in the last sentence of the OP.

The perfect follow-through would be to put him in the Senate. That would be the ultimate confirmation of my theory.

[mitchtv]

16. you'd see an investigation in that case

no doubt

[David in Canada]

21. Is Greene a Fool?

Perhaps Alvin Greene IS a fool and proceeded to part ways with $10,400 of his money.

No one said going on a lark and parting with over 10 grand for a quixotic, no chance Senate campaign was a smart thing to do. Of course, just because it was a dumb idea doesn't mean he couldn't make it. Millions of people make dumbass ideas every day. The difference is that this dumbass had a dumbass idea that paid off because the mainstream candidate himself was a dumbass that made a dumbass assumption that no one would vote for the other dumbass and that said dumbass would defeat the other dumbass though sheer dumbass luck.

[blogslut]

39. I'm agreeing along your line

Not to mention that a candidate as inept as Greene would be incapable of challenging Mr. Demint's policies with any demonstrable effect. In essence, Demint could run virtually unopposed with no one forcing him to defend his positions and/or philosophies.

In a perfect world, every incumbent should have a feisty opponent. As I said in another thread, campaign season is the time when voters have the most power over legislators. This is when they are held the most accountable to the will of the people.

[David in Canada]

13. Probably a Perfect Storm of Various Factors

The reason for Greene's victory is probably a confluence of various factors that melded into a perfect storm of craziness.

1) Both Greene and Rawl were basically unknowns, with the exception of Charleston County in Rawl's case, which Rawl did win and by a significant margin.

2) There was a competitive primary for governor which brought out a lot of voters, including low information voters. Most people who go to vote will vote for all offices regardless of whether or not they know anything about any of the candidates. Some will think if they leave any office blank, their vote will be invalidated so they will choose one candidate at random. There were a total of 197,380 Democratic ballots cast in the Democratic primary. Of those, 170,215 votes were cast in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary. That means over 86.23% of Democratic primary voters voted in the U.S. Senate primary. Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of those 86.23% knew enough about Greene OR Rawl to make a truly informed decision?

3) Even though Rawl was the only viable candidate, without any sort of name recognition or advertisement, he was no different to Greene to most voters. If the majority of primary voters were voting primarily for the gubernatorial race (or for some other down ballot race of primary importance) and had no information about the U.S. Senate race (neither candidate has TV or radio ads up) they would either skip the race altogether (as 13%+ of the primary voters did) or vote using a variety of factors. One is the fact that Greene was placed on the ballot first. If someone were voting for another office and came across it, they might simply vote for the top guy figuring if he was first, he must be the party favourite. Also, if one were to play eenie-meenie-minee-mo and start with Greene's name and move their finger with each word, Greene's name comes last. Another factor is that some voters will go with the better sounding name when neither rings a bell. Repeat in your head "Alvin Greene" three times. Now repeat the name "Vic Rawl" three times as well. Which one sounds smoother? Which one sounds (and reads) more professional. I would reckon most would answer Greene. Furthermore, the name of Vic Rawl kind of looks weird and, frankly, sounds like a cartoon villain. If anything, based on a superficial glance at the two names and the fact Greene was placed first, many low information voters would think, however fallaciously, that it was RAWL that was the gadfly, not Greene.

Another thing: While Greene won the election day voters, Rawl won the absentee voters. One is wondering, "How can this be?" Absentee voters tend to be more attentive to the candidates and issues in general and would likely be better acquainted with Rawl from the get go. Voting absentee requires some actual effort to do. Granted, it isn't the Sisyphean task it once was, but it isn't quite as easy as stopping by the polling station while out to get a gallon of milk, either. A more casual voter would be more likely to skip voting altogether, particularly in a primary, if they had to go out of their way to do so.

The lesson is that no candidate should assume victory is certain. When one assumes, they 'make an ass of u and me', as Rawl has undoubtedly learned.

I see not why one must read malice when one can reasonably explain the election results by attributing it to the laziness on Rawl's part as well as the ignorance of the electorate writ large.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. I would tend to agree except that there were "anomalies" in the machine data,

as detailed on other threads. Vote totals not adding up as they should, etc. Apparently the statisticians are saying that there was apparently much more than voter apathy at work here.

[Crystal Clarity]

22. It was mostly R's voting for him

The fact that R's are allowed to vote in D primaries in SC tells me everything I need to know about how Greene became the D candidate for the general election.

I doubt there was any Diebold sabotage going on. A simple whisper campaign among enough R's could've easily swung Greene into the winning column. And unlike Diebold shenanigans, Republicans voting for Greene would not technically be illegal if the truth were to emerge.

[Shrek]

25. It seems unlikely that many Republicans would vote in the Democratic primary

The Republicans had a hotly contested primary for SC governor (Nikki Haley, etc).

Given the stakes there, would they really choose to skip it just so they could vote for Alvin Greene?

[Crystal Clarity]

26. They wouldn't have to skip it

Vote for their R of choice in the governor's race and Greene in this other.

[Shrek]

27. It doesn't work that way

They can vote the Democratic ballot or the Republican one.

If they want to vote in the Democratic primary for Senate, then they're limited to the Democratic primaries for the other races as well.

[Crystal Clarity]

29. Are you sure?

I've been scouring this site to see if that might be the case...completely separate ballots. Though I see separate results for Dems and R's, I can't find anything about specific separate ballots. I'll take your word for it if you know for sure, but is it possible that they can vote D and/or R interchangeably?

http://www.scvotes.org/south_carolina_voter_registration_information

On edit: I wish I could see some sample ballots...

[mercuryblues]

31. In SC open primaries

You can vote on either the Dem ticket or rep ticket. Not both.

There in no way a whisper campaign would succeed. the r's would have to whisper to at least 50 thousand people. Sill that would only account for 25% of the dem votes. Not that many can keep a secret.

[Crystal Clarity]

32. I already acknowledged that

but thanks. :hi:

You are wrong about whisper campaigns though.

[David in Canada]

37. You are right...

You are right that whisper campaigns can be insidious. However, considering the competitive gubernatorial and Congressional primaries, political operatives would have wanted to maximise the turnout for their respective candidates. Had the GOP primary been a completely ho-hum affair, I would be inclined to agree with you. The reality on the ground suggests otherwise.

It was just one of those races where the establishment pick assumed victory, took the election for granted and got egg on his face. It happens. Not to often but it happens. Vic Rawl's misfortune is a lesson to all candidates for office. As former U.S. Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) once said, "There are two ways to run. Scared and unopposed." Had Rawl heeded that advice, he would be the nominee and Greene would have joined the pantheon of novelty candidates who got less than 20% of the vote.

[Crystal Clarity]

30. OK found it

http://www.bcgov.net/voterreg/SampleBallots.php

I still maintain that it's probably not a Diebold-type thing though. Some of the articles I've read point to irregularities in the absentee ballots. Absentee voting in any state is often ripe for all sorts of oddities and even out-right fraud.

But whatever the cause, it'll be interesting to see how this thing plays out.

[David in Canada]

38. Rawl won absentees...

Rawl won among absentee voters. There are likely two reasons for this:

1) Voting absentee requires going out of ones way to an early voting station or filling out a form to receive an absentee ballot via mail. Both of these take time. A low-information voter is unlikely to go to the trouble unless it is a general election and/or a race that has a lot of MSM attention.

2) Those who vote by mail can actually go online and Google candidates in races they are unsure of. If both absentees and election day voters vote due to a few top, higher profile races, there would be less discrepancy in high profile races and more in low-key ones. In all the online newspaper articles I read before the SC primary, Greene was never mentioned other than the post-filing deadline list of qualified candidates and most stories mentioned Rawl in passing as the "likely nominee". Those who voted in person on election day couldn't step outside the booth for a moment and search Google to find out who Rawl and/or Greene were. Those with mail-in ballots could.

[David in Canada]

36. Well, no...

Voters can choose a Democratic OR a Republican ballot. It isn't a "blanket primary" whereby all candidates of all parties are on one ballot and the top vote getters from each party proceed to the general election as used to occur in Washington state and California for a few cycles.

There were spirited Republican primaries for governor and for two U.S. House races. It is highly unlikely that any GOP operatives would encourage a vote for Greene as they wanted to maximise the turnout for their own primary candidates.

I believe the politicos and the MSM just blithely assumed that Vic Rawl was going to be the nominee and as such, didn't bother to research Alvin Greene, just like they didn't research Susan Gaddy, who challenged Sen. DeMint. She got 16% in that primary, which was essentially the depository for "I-Don't-Like-Jim-DeMint" Republican voters. Of course, DeMint is a known quantity and Gaddy an unknown attorney so anyone who didn't truly hate DeMint basically voted for him.

With an assumed de facto uncontested primary, the media didn't report on it so most primary voters (other than political junkies) had no idea that there even *was* a Senate primary until they saw it staring them in their face while in the polling booth. By then, it was too late to go online and Google their names. Those who voted absentee and could fill out their ballots at home *did* have that luxury which explains the lead for Rawl among mail-in ballots.

As I stated before, when faced with two guys they wouldn't recognise if they had walked up to them and slapped them in the face, they had to use assumption and their "gut". Seeing Greene's name on top could lead a voter to believe he was the endorsed choice. If going by the name, Greene has the more 'normal' name whereas Vic Rawl sounds like a cartoon villain or some guy selling stolen watches out of his trenchcoat in a dark alleyway.

Had Rawl even put down a few bucks for a perfunctory pre-primary ad buy last weekend, he would have had at least enough name recognition to "ring a bell" when voters cast their ballots and would have likely avoided his ignominious fate.

[Synicus Maximus]

24. It does not have to be that complicated. Get someone who is

unqualified, but legal. to run for an office, say a Senator as a Democrat and have a bunch of Repubs vote for him. It worked against Cynthia McKinney.

[ljm2002]

28. That is exactly what I think also...

...it seems to be the only scenario that makes sense.

Front the guy $10,000 to file. Knowing he won't campaign, no Web site, etc. Then rig it so he wins in a runaway.

A perfect way to demonstrate the inherent unreliability of voting machines.

Risky though. But if it works to get people to realize why we might not want electronic counting of our votes, that could be a good thing.

[Synicus Maximus]

33. It's not really risky and has nothing to do with voteing machines.

There would be nothing to stop Repubs from casting valid votes for Greene.

[David in Canada]

40. Why?

Why would Republicans vote in a Democratic Senate primary (which the vast majority of non-political junkie voters had no idea was occurring) when they had a competitive gubernatorial primary and for other downballot positions AND for several Congressional primaries?

Some of those races were so tight there is no way a GOP operative would ask Republicans to request a Democratic ballot and thus cost their preferred candidate a vote when every vote counted.

Had this been 2006 or 2008, you would have a better argument as the GOP didn't really have contested primaries those years.

[Beetwasher]

44. Someone Gave Him $10,000 To File

That's the key to this. Where did that come from? I doubt some vote rigging activist would cough up that cash for this.