*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Monday, November 20, 2006

Readers react to ballot count

Here is some more reader reaction to the close election between U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt and Democratic challenger Victoria Wulsin. The counting of more than 8,200 provisional ballots in the 2nd Congressional District began today.

David Flege of Sycamore Township wrote:

"Victoria Wulsin faces pretty long odds in the counting of the provisional ballots. She must improve from just under 50 percent and capture almost two thirds of the remaining ballots. I looked at the county by county results to see if the estimated provisional ballots are concentrated in areas where Wulsin did exceptionally well.

"Surprisingly, if each county votes the same percentages on the provisional and absentee ballots as the general election, Rep. Jean Schmidt would gain almost 500 votes. About half of the estimated provisionals are in Hamilton county, where Wulsin received 53 percent. But the other half (roughly) are from Warren and Clermont counties where Schmidt polled over 58 percent," Flege said.

"It's a close election and I suppose it's reasonable not to concede until all of the votes are counted. But in the meanwhile, I wish the Wulsin campaign would quit calling my house," Flege said. "Enough already!"

Rob Gims of Monroe wrote:

"I never really get involved with speaking out and stating my point of view but when you look at this situation, I just can not help myself. What is going on in this country with being organized?

"I can only say from my point of view and others I have spoken with, it seems that our government scandalizes are really out of hand. Where is the accountability of the people of this country? This country encourages people to get out and vote but you have to wonder if it all really means anything.

"Today you can not just simply go to the polls and vote with out some form of screw-up. Is this all done on purpose to make it look like they are really trying to make it look like they are counting the votes? Are all the decisions premeditated and we are just fools who think out votes really matter? How much conspiracy is really behind our government? Well I’m sure I’m way out of line but come-on we are in a new century, a century of accuracy. I mean if we can send a rocket into outter space to blast a comet and figure out how to send Rovers to Mars to see if there is water or if water ever existed, then why can’t we count a few stinking ballots accurately and fast? What is wrong with this picture? And trust me, I know I’m not stating anything new here. . .It’s just a thought!!!"


19 Comments:

at 11:17 AM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to admit I don't really understand why a lack of concession on Wulsin's part has any relevance. If a candidate conceeds the race, yet ends up with more votes, does it really matter? Isn't it the will of the people that counts?

Does anyone have any information on this?

 
at 11:21 AM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every vote must be counted before an outcome can be determined. If it appears that there was evidence of malfeasance or incompetence that penalized a portion of the voters (funny how it always favors one party), then an investigation should occur before determination of the winner.

What Really Happened On November 7th?



That unadjusted poll indicated that the Democrats' 2006 total House vote margin was 11.5%, or nearly 4% greater than the 7.6% reported vote count margin.9 This represents nearly a three million vote discrepancy between the validated exit poll results and the reported vote tally for the US House of Representatives. What could account for such a dramatic difference?

It will no doubt be objected that if such substantial manipulation of the vote counts is possible, why would it stop short of bringing about a general electoral victory? While we would like to credit the heightened scrutiny engendered by the untiring efforts of election integrity groups, an awakening media, and a more informed and vigilant public, an alternative, more chilling, explanation has been suggested? simply that the mechanics of manipulation (software modules, primarily) had to be deployed before late breaking pre-election developments greatly expanded the gap that such manipulation would have been calibrated to cover.



Landslide Denied: Exit Polls vs. Vote Count 2006
Under-sampling of Democrats in the House Exit Poll and
the Corruption of the Official Vote Count
- Jonathan Simon, JD, and Bruce O’Dell -
Election Defense Alliance
http://tinyurl.com/y5fk4r

 
at 2:14 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

We can't have private partisan companies secretly counting our ballots. We can't have partisan media outlets choosing who the candidates are that they want to cover.

We can't allow corporations and big money nulify honest elections. We need major election reform and the Enquirer won't cover these issues in any serious way.

 
at 4:01 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to break it to the blindly partisan folks on here, but election problems are not solely the Republicans' doing. Remember mayor Daly in Chicago delivering the election for Kennedy in 1960. Democrats also are notorious for registering ineligable voters including non-citizens and even dead people. Thousands of new Democrat registrations were thrown out in New York this year because they turned out to be dead. Both parties use shady tactics to gain advantages in elections. Take off the partisan hats and wake up to reality.

 
at 4:07 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone answer the question without the conspiracy theories or dramatics?

Seriously - what difference does it make if Wulsin concedes or not? If, when the votes are counted, Wulsin ends up with more, then she is the winner. If Schmidt has more, then she is the winner. This is why we have elections, right? Is a concession a legally binding act?

 
at 7:54 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 4:07

no one is making a fuss about the fact that she's not conceding. any reasonable person would have no problem with that, and would probably do the same thing. all votes need to be counted. period.

people, like me, are upset because she's essentially being a sore loser. first of all, she's already talking of a recount. the senate races in virginia and montana were closer than the 2nd district, and yet the republicans conceded, and anyone that can do basic math can figure out that vic has slim to low chance of winning in the first place. secondly, she has basically accused the schmidt campaign, and schmidts chief of staff, of election fraud, because he wasn't aware that voters could go back and show proof of identification. wulsin is accusing him of doing this on purpose which was obviously an honest mistake, though i wouldnt be surprised if she attributes her loss to the one line quote in an obscure news article.

if she would keep her mouth shut, i would have no problem with her, but she's being a pain in the ass, and shes making a mockery out of our election system. give me a break vic. you lost, fair and square, unless you really believe that somehow, the BOEs in the second district threw the race for jean (but not for any other republican candidate in the state...), which may quite possibly be her next accusation.

sorry schmidt haters, but you lost yet again. shut your mouths, take off your tinfoil hats, and try to come up with a decent candidate in 2 years. victoria wulsin is/was a joke who doesn't have a clue what the constituents of the 2nd district want, and fortunately, enough voters saw that.

 
at 11:31 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will the "bold italics guy" or Jim Parker tell me what to think about this matter? I can't form an opinion without their sage wisdom and guidance.

 
at 2:23 AM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:01 PM Anonymous said...
Thousands of new Democrat [sic] registrations were thrown out in New York this year because they turned out to be dead.

What? Can you back up that statement?

 
at 9:03 AM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 4:01 PM, November 20, 2006 Anonymous:

It is NOT about partisanship, it is about the integrity of the vote and that the outcome reflects the will of the people. Whether it be D or R, election manipulation should not be allowed. The gross abuses in the 2000 election (especially in FL where FL SOS Katherine Harris had 97,000 Af Am voters wrongfully purged (google it) was a wake up call to many Americans. It's time for all Americans, regardless of party or lack of, to stand up for fair, transparent and verifiable elections.

 
at 9:19 AM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love all of you who have nothing better to do than claim conspiracy on everything. Yea there is a conspiracy to keep Jean in office but all of the other republicans that lost were not worth being in on the conspiracy. Jean is the worst republican congressperson in the USA. So the Rep. are fixing this election but all of the close races that the Dems. won for control of the Senate the Rep. did not want to fix those. Listen to yourself.

There has been fraud forever in elections and history is that the Democrates have tried to register those not eligible to vote. Yes just like they did in Chicago.

I think it is a good idea to make sure people are who they say they are at the polls. People should only vote once and only if they are legal to vote. DON'T YOU AGREE?? So if you are too stupid to have ID on you to prove that you are who you say you are that is your fault. History has been way to many people voting for Dead people, people voting many times, etc. Will all of you not admit that is wrong and should be stopped??

Guess what people we have not had an election with out problems for years. It happens where Republicans are in control and it happens where Democrates are in control. But I doubt the Dems will admit that!!!! Yes lets fix the problems and lets fix the fraud.

Will you all agree on that???

 
at 9:21 AM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

no one is making a fuss about the fact that she's not conceding. any reasonable person would have no problem with that, and would probably do the same thing. all votes need to be counted. period.

I think there's a partial answer in there somewhere to my question, so thanks, I guess.

However, I never questioned anyone's actions specifically, nor did I mention anything about anyone making a fuss. My question was procedural. Taking the candidates out of the equation, what difference does it make if one concedes the race?

Seems simple enough to me.

 
at 10:27 AM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I blame Freemasonry!

 
at 12:00 PM, November 21, 2006 Blogger John in Cincinnati said...

I'm extremely pleased Victoria Wulsin is working to ensure every legitimate vote is counted. While concessions have almost no legal standing*, the media and the public appear to lose all interest once a candidate concedes.

A friend of mine in Clermont County was placed on the Must Vote Provisional list. Her 60-day notice was returned to the board of elections as undeliverable, even though she's resided at the same address for 17 years. She wants her vote to count but won't know until provisional ballots are counted.

Regardless of the outcome, democracy demands that every legitimate vote be counted.

--John

*almost -- In the CA-50 race last summer, Speaker Hastert had Bilbray fly to DC and swore him in before results were certified after Busby conceded.

 
at 12:22 PM, November 21, 2006 Blogger ThatDeborahGirl said...

Cracks me up that for an example of how "Dems" do the same thing as Repbulicans that guy had to date it back 40 years and in another city.

I'm talking about 2006 and right here at home. I, for one, am proud of Vic Wulsin for hanging in there. The margins were slim and she's insisting on what we all should insist on for every election. Every ballot confirmed and counted. Should she be elected, then we know she'll fight just as hard for us. Should she not win, I hope she will concede with every bit of dignity as been her insistence on a confirmed outcome.

This business of absentee and provisional ballots being treated as second class votes should be stopped if for no other reason than so many people were encouraged to vote by absentee even if the reason was something as simple as not being able to get away from work. I'm sure those folks expected their ballots to be counted along with the others, not kept in a bag and only used in an "emergency".

That kind of sham democracy has no place in modern society. That falseness should be viewed as the shame and scandal, not insisting that every vote be counted no matter how long it takes.

That anyone would endorse expediency over a valid elections process is a mark of how careless we have become regarding such a sacred and solemn responsibility.

 
at 4:48 PM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cracks me up how someone could miss the other two examples I gave of Democrat misconduct in elections. I guess some people only pay attention to what they want to respond to. Here's a link to the story on dead voters in NYC. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164201. Don't forget the congressional candidate in San Diego telling Hispanics that they didn't need to be legal to vote (as long as they voted for her I'm sure.)

 
at 5:30 PM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was mistaken in my first post. It wasn't new registrations for dead people that were thrown out. It was dead people voting. A little truthiness on my part.

 
at 7:50 PM, November 21, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

In Wulsin's case, it is more like dead people running for office....
Spare me the empty suit...

 
at 12:27 AM, November 24, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Deborah:

I did not say anything about not counting the votes. I want all of the votes counted and they will be. So there you go twisting something someone said.

I ask once again don't you want to get rid of fraud in elections?? How about no dead people voting?? How about people only voting once?? How about the facts that other examples of fraud were talked about in this blog.

Absentee ballots are counted in a certain way. No one is not counting those votes. They always count the absentee ballots, No as you twisted the facts agian they are not used to count in a close election. Every election they are counted. Why do they wait?? Well because you can send them in postmarked by election day. So they wait for them to come in by mail, some from overseas. So they have to give it sometime. That is why they are counted later. But you just want to complain they are not counted election night. Well some of them are not available election night. Maybe you should examine the facts before you pop off and bitch about votes not being counted.

I talked about both Rep, and Dems. in charge where elctions are not run smoothly. I guess you just can't admit that dems are ever wrong or make a mistake. And I guess you can't say that voter fraud is bad and should be stopped. You just spend your time side stepping questions and twisting facts. Can you anwser those questions???

Or are you just going to run your mouth.

 
at 8:58 PM, November 25, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cracks me up how someone could miss the other two examples I gave of Democrat misconduct in elections. I guess some people only pay attention to what they want to respond to. Here's a link to the story on dead voters in NYC. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=164201

That article is not about dead voters. Rather it is about voter registration databases that have the names of deceased individuals on them.

From the article:

The numbers do not indicate how much fraud is the result of dead voters in New York, only the potential for it. Typically, records of votes by the dead are the result of bookkeeping errors and do not mean any extra ballots were actually cast...

In most cases, instances of dead voters can be attributed to database mismatches and clerical errors. For instance, the Social Security Administration admits there are people in its master death index who are not dead.



The candidates and party least likely to win are the parties who would be tempted to commit fraud. In New York that would be the GOP.

Clearly you favor biased news sources. This article first appeared in the Pughkepsie Journal with a different headline:

Deceased residents on statewide voter list
Statewide database of registered voters has potential for errors and fraud


The biased headline on the so-called Liberty Post:

Dead Continue to Cast Ballots in NY...

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck