When is 141% --> 100% or less

[sirs]

When there's no voter fraud, silly  Move along, nothing to see here but Black Panthers and Election Judges wearing Obama hats........I mean, how 'bout them Marlins?

[hnumpah]

When there's no voter fraud, silly  Move along, nothing to see here but Black Panthers and Election Judges wearing Obama hats........I mean, how 'bout them Marlins?

Or, as I have seen explained, when the person reporting doesn't know the difference between 'cards cast' and the number of voters. Since St Lucie County had a two card ballot (so did we), voters did not have to fill out both cards...one was mainly for elected office holders, the other for the proposed amendments to the state constitution. If you only wanted to vote for specific candidates for office and not cast a yes or no vote on any of the amendments, only the first card had to be filled out; if you weren't interested in voting for any of the candidates running for office and only wanted to vote on the amendments, only the second card needed to be filled out. Most people fill out both, but some fill out only one or the other - only the cards that are filled out are counted as 'cards cast', and as you can see, that number can be up to 2X the number of voters. Which, if you take the time to check the numbers, makes sense.

Of course no one does. It's more fun to write alarmist stories.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?p=1682598

http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf%20Do...C%20REPORT.pdf

[sirs]

Under redundant in the dictionary it says "see redundant"

I'm going to take a stab and guess you didn't get the joke.  No biggie

[hnumpah]

You would be wrong. I do hit the wrong key occassionally. Goes with neuropathy in my fingers and hands.

[Plane]

You would be wrong. I do hit the wrong key occassionally. Goes with neuropathy in my fingers and hands.

I have had that , it encourages brevity.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I bet someone actually believes that because of one Black Panther and one election official wearing an Obama hat, Romney lost.

[Plane]

I bet someone actually believes that because of one Black Panther and one election official wearing an Obama hat, Romney lost.

I don't doubt that much cheating has not been caught.

Especially since in most states still , it is forbidden to check for cheating.

I resisted the temptation to tour a state that doesn't check ID voting in every polling place I could bounce to in a day, but not because I would have been caught.

[hnumpah]

I don't doubt that much cheating has not been caught.

I don't doubt the attempts may have been made, on both sides, and some may have slipped through.

We had several amendments to vote on, all sponsored by our Republican legislature.

One mentioned abortion rights. Should I have reported the lady who checked me in for wearing a pink blouse, possibly to sway my vote for womens right to choose?

One was to guarantee freedom of religion, but allow public money to be used to support religious activities. Another check in lady was wearing a crucifix - should I have reported her?

And the anti-gay marriage amendment - ooh, that guy over there, the monitor, with a rainbow tie...

None of them swayed me. None of them even came close. I doubt they swayed anyone.

It does still amaze me, though, that even now, 12 years later, Florida still cannot come up with a timely total. I guess it did pay off though, being so thorough, since the final margin was greater than the margin that would have triggered an automatic recount. We could have been a gray state for another week.

[sirs]

I bet someone actually believes that because of one Black Panther and one election official wearing an Obama hat, Romney lost.

Strange bet to make

And H....IIRC, Pennsylvania law said no one working a voting locale, which would include judges, should be publically supporting one candidate over another, inside a voting precinct.  An Obama hat is pretty cut and dry in supporting a specific candidate.  A pink dress or rainbow tie isn't, unless its embroidered with "vote this way"

Nice try though

[hnumpah]

And H....IIRC, Pennsylvania law said no one working a voting locale, which would include judges, should be publically supporting one candidate over another, inside a voting precinct.  An Obama hat is pretty cut and dry in supporting a specific candidate...

True, and people make mistakes, or don't pay attention to rules, or forget.

One person wearing a hat does not a conspiracy make.

[sirs]

Nor did anyone claim or even infer it was       

[Xavier_Onassis]

So why bother to mention it?

It was inconsequential, and could not have influenced even one precinct.

[Plane]

If I claim that Maine had 20% voteing by Vermonters , where is the evidence that would contradict me?

[sirs]

So why bother to mention it?

Because its newsworthy....because if this were a judge wearing a Romney hat, it'd be broadcast all over the fricken news, because if it were a KKK member outside of a polling booth, it'd be a 24/7 news blitz, with the inference that the GOP even supported it, if not behind it

It was inconsequential, and could not have influenced even one precinct.

Newsflash, wrong is wrong.  Just because you have no problem giving it a pass because its helpful to your team, doesn't make it any less worse or any less wrong.  Rationalize all you want, I can rest easy knowing that if it were a judge wearing a Romney hat, I wouldn't be explaining as some alzheimer's moment, or that he "just forgot".  I'd call it WRONG & GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE, if not criminally negligent.  This election was touted as being razer thin.  Acts just like this, if multiplied across the country, could have easily tipped the scale.

I said IF

[Plane]

I am not really concerned about minor infractions.

But I object to the effort to cover major infractions and call them minor.

In states that still do not require ID of voters , does there exist any method to prevent large scale multiple voting?

The minor infractions should get the minor attention they deserve , the wholesale cheats need to get locked up.