OT slightly but read it
 

Tried to post this earlier, a phone call to AOL was ne,,,, actually I dunno.

Here goes:

Hey all;

This is a quite late time for this question but here goes.

A person I know recieved a newsletter from her local union. I can't believe it,
but stranger things in life turn out to be true sometimes.

It says:

"Did you know that you must vote an entire election ballot for it to be
considered valid. This means that you must vote on all candidates and issues on
the ballot. If you do not your ballot is considered invalid."

I find this hard to believe to say the least. This is in Ohio and I know we got
some pretty strange laws here, like not being a State until 1953 yet
celebrating a bicentenial in 2003.

However, in my opinion if you make only one selection of the ballot and do it
lawfully it should be unlawful for them to discard it.

Does anyone know for SURE if an incomplete ballot is counted ?

For years we hear about only 30% of the people vote, I wonder now !

Again, does anyone know for SURE ?

JURB

Subject: OT slightly but read it
From: (JURB6006)
Date: 11/1/2004 10:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

snip
Does anyone know for SURE if an incomplete ballot is counted ?

For years we hear about only 30% of the people vote, I wonder now !

Again, does anyone know for SURE ?

JURB


Yes. For sure. Partial ballots count in EVERY state.

It sounds like one of those "suppress the opponent's core vote" tricks we've
been hearing about, especially in Ohio and the other swing states. Check out:

http://ohvotesuppression.blogspot.com/

Ohio Voter Suppression News

Good luck
Chris

Yes. For sure. Partial ballots count in EVERY state.

Just voted and skipped some choices as I was not informed about them and the
"vote accepted" light blinked!

"JURB6006" wrote in message
...
| "vote accepted" light blinked!
|
| Hmmmmmm, wonder why it didn't say "vote counted" or "vote recorded".
|
| I'm not saying that what I originally posted is true, but one wonders what
| action would result in "vote not accepted".
|
| I'll tell you this though, with Bush winning I get more suspicious of
| elections. I really can't believe that many people are doing well and
support
| Bush's policies. The election should've been closer at the very least IMO.

Didn't the exit polls put Kerry in the lead? I just assumed that the Diebold
machines did what they were programmed to do, so the result doesn't surprise
me. Didn't the president of Diebold say he was going to deliver the votes to
Bush?

Instead of these dubious touch screen machines, why not regular PCs with a
custom keyboard and a laser printer which prints out an optical scan voting
card which the voter could double check? The machines could give a quick
result, but the cards would be the final answer and could be recounted
(except in Florida where they would no doubt be sorted into Republican and
Lost). Cheap to buy, cheap to upgrade or fix and hard to fake.

N

See below.

"JURB6006" wrote in message
...

I'll tell you this though, with Bush winning I get more suspicious of
elections. I really can't believe that many people are doing well and
support
Bush's policies. The election should've been closer at the very least IMO.

JURB

I think that there were a lot of people that were unhappy with GWB, but the
problem was that no reasonable alternative was provided so the majority went
with the lesser of the two evils.

Bob

On 03 Nov 2004 20:58:07 GMT, (JURB6006) wrote:

"vote accepted" light blinked!

Hmmmmmm, wonder why it didn't say "vote counted" or "vote recorded".

I'm not saying that what I originally posted is true, but one wonders what
action would result in "vote not accepted".

I'll tell you this though, with Bush winning I get more suspicious of
elections. I really can't believe that many people are doing well and support
Bush's policies. The election should've been closer at the very least IMO.

Of course we already knew we would never be able to vote our way out of the
mess they've caused.

JURB

Apparently Ralph Nader was complimentary about the way we run our
elections here in the Great White North.

Tom

"Tom MacIntyre" wrote in message
...
| On 03 Nov 2004 20:58:07 GMT, (JURB6006) wrote:
|
| "vote accepted" light blinked!
|
| Hmmmmmm, wonder why it didn't say "vote counted" or "vote recorded".
|
| I'm not saying that what I originally posted is true, but one wonders
what
| action would result in "vote not accepted".
|
| I'll tell you this though, with Bush winning I get more suspicious of
| elections. I really can't believe that many people are doing well and
support
| Bush's policies. The election should've been closer at the very least
IMO.
|
| Of course we already knew we would never be able to vote our way out of
the
| mess they've caused.
|
| JURB
|
| Apparently Ralph Nader was complimentary about the way we run our
| elections here in the Great White North.
|
| Tom

What was really funny was that during the time the Yanks were trying to
count the votes in Florida the Canadians ran an entire election campaign,
voted on pieces of paper with pencils, counted the votes and the new
government was elected. Counting took less than a day.

N

tricks we've
been hearing about,

I've been to that site, thanks. There is alot going on.

JURB