HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Groups » Bernie Sanders (Group) » We need a recount of the ...

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:17 PM

 

We need a recount of the "early voting" ballots in Arizona.

Bernie won 60-40 with the votes counted yesterday (only 30,000 out of a 4M person country voted - many were disenfranchised). But the early voter ballots are the ones I am really suspect of. Who did the counting of those ballots? Was it bi-partisan? Supposedly the reason they could call for Hillary after 1% of the vote was counted was due to the early ballots - which no one can see or verify.

I DEMAND A RECOUNT!!

Please read this!

http://justicegazette.org/az-sanders-wins-real-vote-while-clinton-wins-rigged-count.html

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

22 replies, 2325 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply We need a recount of the "early voting" ballots in Arizona. (Original post)
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 OP
Atman Mar 2016 #1
Raster Mar 2016 #2
bkkyosemite Mar 2016 #3
jillan Mar 2016 #4
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #10
jillan Mar 2016 #11
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #13
jillan Mar 2016 #14
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #15
jillan Mar 2016 #17
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #18
Land of Enchantment Mar 2016 #16
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #19
Land of Enchantment Mar 2016 #20
Viva_La_Revolution Mar 2016 #5
TheFarseer Mar 2016 #8
Elmer S. E. Dump Mar 2016 #12
snagglepuss Mar 2016 #6
TheFarseer Mar 2016 #7
Kalidurga Mar 2016 #9
lmbradford Mar 2016 #21
corbettkroehler Mar 2016 #22

Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:21 PM

1. It isn't difficult to image that early voters voted for Bernie.

Many (most?) Bernie supporters had their minds made up early. They weren't going to vote for Clinton no matter, no way, no how. It does seem very odd that they were able to call the vote for Clinton so early, especially given all of the other problems with the Arizona vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:26 PM

2. This Arizona early voter voted for Bernie!

59-year old white male, long-time Arizona Democrat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:28 PM

3. Rigged and so are other states trying to rig the system right now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:35 PM

4. More important than that is to get the provisional ballots counted, the ones that were filled out

on Tuesday.

That has to be top priority.

The people that voted on a provisional ballot were people that were registered Dem but the computers at the polling sites showing the voter roll had something different. In many cases the party affiliation was left blank!

The people that were registered independents and tried to vote were correctly told to leave, that they could not vote in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:40 PM

10. I heard they were throwing them all out, or I would have included them.

 

Supposedly, you can't vote if you are an independent, and whoever changed that information on the computer will probably never be known. And when you are only holding deuces, you really can't challenge the people with the aces.

That's why our entire election system should be re-thought and re-implemented for consistency across the country (at least for national elections).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:43 PM

11. Where did you hear that? omg..... I heard they wouldn't be counted but not that they were thrown out

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:45 PM

13. Not counted, or thrown out - no difference if we never get to see them.

 

I don't remember where I read that. I trust it was not a lie, but then again it's the internet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:13 PM

14. I don't think they would be thrown out - shoved in a warehouse somewhere, definitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:17 PM

15. Then let's get them reviewed!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:22 PM

17. I agree! I'd actually like to see a complete do-over. Altho that would never happen BUT it should-

it would be a lesson to all the other states that are going to try the same bs.

They cut the # of polling places to save money, it would definitely send a message if this primary ended up costing even more.

As a taxpayer, I do not care. I'll gladly pay my share to have this election done right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:26 PM

18. I don't believe the saving money bullshit

 

You don't eliminate 70% of the voting locations without having a nefarious reason. They used all 200 last election averaging 2500 per voting location, which is about normal. Why did they think, when by all accounts more people would be voting this year, that they can get rid of 140 of the 200 locations? I don't buy their explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:22 PM

16. Spent most of the day trying to find

info on the 'upgrade to software' and what is going on with the provisional ballots...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4blzpp/arizona_is_a_massive_fraud/
Why is Michelle Reagan, the Arizona Secretary of State, not releasing the number of provisional ballots cast ?

Nobody will make me believe that the crazy long lines in Maricopa County were only comprised of 32'000 voters (see great reply by puppuli further down: https://redd.it/4blzpp) !
In Maricopa County in the 2008 democratic primary, there were 113807 votes at the polls, in 2016 only 32949, which is a turnout difference of -71% !
In Pima County in the 2008 democratic primary, there were 72863 votes at the polls, in 2016 only 19801, which is a turnout difference of -73% !
Can you still believe that this change in turnout is possible, despite the record long lines ?
It has been published that there has been are only 32'000 votes cast in Maricopa. If this is true, why did it take 5 or 6 hours to vote for most people ? In 2008 there were 113'00 votes cast on the primary day in Maricopa with 200 polling stations and it lasted not more than 15 minutes to vote. Yesterday, it was officially announced that there were 32'000 votes cast in 60 polling stations. More or less 3.5 times less votes and also 3.5 times less polling stations. But why was then the waiting time in the line to vote more than 5 hours long ? This means the waiting time was 20 times longer than in 2008 for the same number of votes cast per polling station ! This defies logic ! The only rational explanation is that there were much more voters than these 32'000 and that their vote has not been accounted for.


I read somewhere they used GEMS connected to MVD but the MVD is changing all ID's to facial recognition--it's all very confusing and the SoS is mum about everything....
Possibly the AZ software:
http://www.dfmassociates.com/eims.asp

Long pdf but very informative:
http://www.acluohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ACLU-VoterRegCostsOnline2015_0224.pdf
b. Cost Savings in Arizona
Before the online system was created, local elections officials in Arizona faced three surge
periods each election year: just prior to elections, when processing registration applications
and resolving problems with applications; on Election Day, when dealing with voters who were
not on the rolls due to incomplete applications; and after elections, when speedily processing
provisional ballots that resulted from clerical errors or incomplete applications.
After the online registration program launched and usage increased, savings fell into two
main categories: reductions in staffing and nonstaffing expenses such as printing, scanning,
and postage. Those interviewed in Arizona emphasized that savings on staffing were very
important because in addition to state- and county-level budgetary reductions, the transition to
a paperless system greatly improved worker productivity and the accuracy of voter rolls. These
improvements were due to the reduction in workload surges at the three time periods outlined
above, surges that often necessitated extensive overtime (and resulted in fatigue) and/or the use
of relatively inexperienced temporary workers. The transition to a paperless system means that
most data entry from a paper application is eliminated, incomplete applications are minimized
because the process is complete only if the registrant fills in all required fields, and the number of provisional n Maricopa County…60 to ballots is greatly reduced. This is in marked contrast to the cost of 70 percent of new voters in processing provisional ballots, which is triggered each time there is a even years and 90 percent dispute. Such ballots cost about $3.90 each for the form, envelope, and staff or more in odd years are verification and processing.17 registering online. Maricopa County, the state’s largest county, saved $1.4 million on voter registration alone between 2008 and 2012.18 Maricopa County elections officials estimate that a standard voter registration application costs $0.83 in staff time to enter data from a paper
form, a cost that is slashed to $0.03—or less than 4 percent of the paper-based system cost—
with Arizona’s EZ Voter online system.19 Under most circumstances, the online system would
not involve any data entry, and thus costs would be reduced to zero because the registration or
update is automatic. However, Maricopa County officials included a nominal cost of 3 cents to
allow for the unusual case of a registration that needs extra attention. This is a conservative
estimate that does not include savings due to reduced use of paper or postage. Uptake of the
online option in Maricopa County has been huge—60 to 70 percent of new voters in even years
and 90 percent or more in odd years are registering online.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land of Enchantment (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:29 PM

19. Right! 32,000 divided by 60 locations is 533 voters per locations

 

There would be NO LINES if that was the case. So much of this stinks to high heaven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:04 PM

20. It is so freaking obvious and all the

'math experts' are totally ignoring this...or maybe I finally got them all on 'Ignore'.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:37 PM

5. that would do nothing and would not fix anything

Hillary voters did vote early, no big deal. The problem is the votes that never got counted (provisionals) or never got cast.. You can't recount those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_La_Revolution (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:48 PM

8. It's pretty well documented

Hillary campaign knows how to work the system to get early votes- like people going door to door with pre-filled out ballots only needing a signature. I'll grant you older folks might want to vote early and avoid the line but not by 5-1 margins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viva_La_Revolution (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:44 PM

12. Looks like 70-80% of people voted early. They were not all HRC voters. Were they even REAL people?

 

I would like to recount the things we can recount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:41 PM

6. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:43 PM

7. This is unreal

If this was in Africa, the UN would declare these elections to be invalid. Hard to believe this is happening, but this is what happens when you threaten the system. I hope they don't get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:26 PM

9. That sounds like a reasonable request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Elmer S. E. Dump (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:16 PM

21. Count the Provisional Ballots

Those are the voters that got screwed for sure that we can still add. Those turned away are sol at this point. Id get a court order to count those provisionals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread