24 days after the election and the votes still aren't counted? Jim Dantona leads on election night, he leads after the first batch of absentees, he leads after the 2nd batch of absentees, and then in the next batch, he's losing by 700? Then it creeps along to the current 885. The election office has mishandled this process and the workers at the polls were poorly trained. There are many questions and complaints. Our county is being laughed at by others in the state.

I think there needs to be an investigation into how the counting was handled, how the machines functioned, and a recount to validate the election results.

This isn't the only race that is close in the county. In some races, Republicans lost. I think both parties should call for a recount and review.

I am sure if we replace all the machines with computers like in Florida the problems will be solved.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/24/73614/762

Something,

You need to check your stats. Foy led in the 1st absentee count, Dantona led on election day, Foy regained the lead in the 2nd absentee count and has gained ground in every count since.

Leave it alone! All we need to do is stop wasting money. the votes are in and nothing is fishy. doesnt the time it took, prove teh careful handleing of absentee votes. I watched the video on how absentee votes are counted and believe it is time consuming but not wrong or fishy. No counties are laughing. no counties care. stop making things up. re-counts should be paid for by the person who wants to re-count them. STOP THE PUSH TO WASTE MORE COUNTY MONEY.

I think the law says the person requesting the recount has to pay so calm down.

I see nothing wrong with looking into any problems to make the system more efficient in the future. I am sure Peter Foy and Jim Dantona would agree.

I don't see anyone saying the system was rigged, just that the system is inefficient. Wouldn't you agree? In private enterprise we wouldn't tolerate such a slow system as the market would destroy it.

While the absentee count has been painfully slow, there is no reason to suspect that the election results are tainted. If Dantona wants a recount he can pay for it, but given the margin of victory for Foy there is zero hope that Dantona can prevail in a recount. This race is over. If Dantona wants to wait until the last ballot is counted that is his perogative.

The only thing that bugged me was an article in the Star where Dantona said that the final count may not be final. Dantona claims that four attorneys from around the country are investigating delays and balloting problems, and stated that he may contest the election results. In my opinon that would just come off as sour grapes. Once the final count is in he should graciously accept the will of the voters and move on. That would be the classy thing to do. I guess we'll know soon enough what kind of man Dantona is.

Would Dantona pay for a recount himself, or would he have the local democratic party pay his way? If so, didnt he put himself on a ventura county republicans voter guide? I am sure the Republican party wouldnt pay for him. Can he muster up that kind of dough just to waste people time? If he did, wouldnt that say something about his fiscal conservatism he preached to all of us?

Amazing how the sheer POSSIBILITY of CONSIDERING a wholly legitimate action riles up so many people.

The election's over. Mr Foy's received the most ballots. Why the concern over what Dantona may or may not do with his legal options?

Besides, what if a recount or an investigation actually found something terribly wrong with the balloting? For instance, what if it was found that 1000 or more ABs were signed by the actual voter but filled out later, by others? Or that when the provisional ballots are counted Mr Foy's lead gets cut to under 1%?

Come Dec 5 we'll know for certain who gets certified but for now the candidates have options.

The issue is that Dantona is already threatening to contest the election results even before we have a final vote count. He claims some type of vague "balloting problems" without giving any evidence or examples of what supposed problems he claims occurred during the election. If he has some information that the election results are tainted then bring the evidence forward, otherwise he should accept the results and move on.

Furthermore, I don't think that we should be wasting our time and taxpayer money conducting investigations into elections absent any evidence that there were problems. If Dantona wants a recount and is willing to pay for it out of his own pocket then fine, that is his choice. California election law also gives him the right to review all relevant election materials. But it seems really premature for Dantona to declare to the public that there were balloting problems when he hasn't even done a recount or reviewed the detailed ballot results. It just comes off as one more example of unsubstantiated allegations without proof by Dantona.

This election had problems from the beginning:

Some voters in Ojai receiving absentee ballots with Foy and Dantona contest listed on it although they are not in the 4th supervisorial district.

Something similar (involving another contest) happened with absentee ballots in Conejo Valley.

These new voting machines - hugely underwritten by the taxpayers of the state - did not function as they were supposed to.

There were some mistakes reported in voter rolls and equipment delivered to some precincts that might have also effected voters ability to vote.

It is possible also that some voters may have voted twice - intentionally or not - both at the polls and by absentee. (It does happen!)

It is also possible that in the four weeks since the election, that the temp staff counting the votes may have made some errors in tabulating the record number of absentee votes. To say that errors are not a possibility is wishful thinking and unrealistic in view of the realities of how this is done - huge number of votes, relatively small and minimally trained staff, small area in which to store and tabulate votes, damaged ballots, etc.

In view of all of the above, it would not hurt to check. All candidates and all voters have a vested interested in making sure that the elections are run both honestly and accurately. Otherwise, the entire process is a clever illusion.

Brian,
Is it true that Foy has named the Reverend Moon his psychic advisor?

To all!!!!! MoveOn.org.............Foy won Dantona Lost.
Support your leaders and support democracy. Save your mean spirit for the next election.

The day after the election Dantona was ahead by 300 votes and all his supporters were happy about what appeared to be a narrow victory. This blog had several posts congratulating our newly elected Supervisor.

Back then I don't recall any concern by Dantona supporters about problems with ballots, voting machines, double-counting, voter rolls, or poorly trained staff. How interesting that these didn't become problems until Dantona fell behind after counting the remaining absentee ballots. So it seems that Dantona can win by 300 votes and it is a clean election, but if Foy wins by 900 votes it must be tainted.

How interesting.

Bubba,

When was the last time a California county took four weeks to count the votes in an election? Isn't your curiosity just piqued a little bit by this?

What do you figure will happen in 2008's presidential election when there are even more votes to count?

Don't you have even the slightest interest in why the latest (and most expensive!) equipment that this county could buy didn't work as it was supposed to? Or why the ballot printer could not manage to print the ballots for Ojai and other areas correctly?

There are about 5 or 6 races in this county that are close enough to have been changed by a small mistake or two and it seems to me the possibility of that is worth considering given the chaotic situation that we saw in this election.

Say what you want about Los Angeles, but the results there - and throughout the rest of California voting were finished on time to be certified within the legal time frame. Failure to do that here due to poor execution of an election would be a huge disaster for all or has that possibility crossed your mind?

Bubba,

When was the last time a California county took four weeks to count the votes in an election? Isn't your curiosity just piqued a little bit by this?

What do you figure will happen in 2008's presidential election when there are even more votes to count?

Don't you have even the slightest interest in why the latest (and most expensive!) equipment that this county could buy didn't work as it was supposed to? Or why the ballot printer could not manage to print the ballots for Ojai and other areas correctly?

There are about 5 or 6 races in this county that are close enough to have been changed by a small mistake or two and it seems to me the possibility of that is worth considering given the chaotic situation that we saw in this election.

Say what you want about Los Angeles, but the results there - and throughout the rest of California voting were finished on time to be certified within the legal time frame. Failure to do that here due to poor execution of an election would be a huge disaster for all or has that possibility crossed your mind?

For a conservative like Foy to only be winning by a couple hundred votes in this area shows what a weak candidate Foy is. As people found out more about him the less they liked him. I bet he surrounds himself with right wing nuts like Bubba and Dad. I wonder if Bubba belongs to the Unification church run by Sun Myung Moon. I understand Foy and Moon run in the same circles. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hank,

Your comment about Bubba is unfair and out of line in this discussion.

I do not agree with Bubba's comments on this topic or his overall prejudice against Dantona, but I it is best for all here to try to focus on the topic and try to keep all discussion rational and not get personal.

The world according to the Dantona cult:

Foy Supporters = Right Wing Extremists
(which, by extention, means that 52% of all voters in the 4th District are Right-Wing extremists since they voted for Foy)

Close election in Dantona's favor = Clean Election

Close election in Foy's favor = Tainted Election

Innuendo, supposition, insinuation, and unsubstantiated rumors against Foy = Facts

What an interesting fantasy world you guys live in. Hopefully you also have lots of rainbows and unicorns in your dream land.

In all fairness, who cares about all the mumbo jumbo about Jim Whats his name? By next febuary Foy will be in office doing his day to day deal, and dantona will be showing up to the supervisor meetings, lobbying for waste management asking to expand the dump. ITS OVER ! And again, ventura county should look into quicker ways to count ballots but when was the last time any county in california was found to have corruption in its vote counting. C'mon.

And as far as Bubb'as last remark. I second that. That was funny.

Brian, how about for the next topic, "Foy is supervisor"

Dearest Hank, If someone {me] disagrees with you I must be a right wing nut? Sorry to ruin your day but I belong to the same party as you. So maybe you can change party so you're not stuck with a nut in your party....when we lose it might just be the election process is corrupt.

To bring a little clarity to this discussion, most the counties are still counting ballots. 11/5 is the date to certify, at which time all counties are required to. Some of the larger counties may still not have counted all the provisionals. This is not an abnormal condition.

What happened here was the unexpected number of late returned absentee ballots. 140,000 or so were mailed out, by the Thursday before the election about 60,000 had been returned, this was not an unusual number and the Clerks office prepared for the normal action. The surprise was the extra 40,000 or so that came in after that, creating an overwhelming amount of post-election day work. They are getting through it and, I'm confident, will certify on time.

Bubba's right about one thing though, the 4th District race is over. Foy's lead is insurmountable.

Do I think Foy will eb the next supervisor? of course I do.

But the official party shoudl wait and honor our system. I don't really know how long every other county is taking and if Ventura takes much more time of course that is troubling.

I propose:

1.All votes should be counted.
2. We should check there wasn't any large problems during the voting.
2. After that the winner should take office.

I think the attacks on Dantona wanting to make sure everything was fair is uncalled for.

I also don't think Peter Foy is staying up late wondering who won or what will happen.

By the way, Scott Blough has written a few stories about things we can control. I am surprised some of the posters here are more interested in arguing about a slow vote count and an unlikely recount instead of problems you could help work on.

Scott Blough wrote about illegal immigration. Both candidates spoke about it. Why aren't their supporters talking about ways the city of Simi Valey could work on the issue.

I would hope that Laura Winchester, Mike Osbourn, Garibaldi, (GS already commented), Voter, and the rest of the bunch would help city leaders come up with a good plan.

Bubba,
First if you speak to Gene Browning who's the No. 2 guy in the Ventura's Election Division he will confirm that a number of precincts in the 4th district were counted twice, to rectify the problem they said they zeroed out the precincts and ran them again. When asked how many precincts he said he wasn't sure but thought somewhere between 5 to 10. When asked what were the precincts numbers he said they didn't keep a log of that info. WHAT ???????????????? If you or I did that in our jobs I'm sure we wouldn't be working for long. No one is accussing anyone of fixing the election but I can't believe how sloppy the count was handled. Yes I voted for Dantona and I would be willing to bet if Foy was down by 885 votes and knew this info he would be thinking of questioning the process. You hate Dantona so much you can't even be honest. NO LOG OF PRECICNT NUMBERS COUNTED TWICE ????? That seems like a no brainer, but in fact the clerk kept no log of that info. Try and separste you hate for Dantona from common sense. Elections should never be handled like that, these people get paid to conduct fair and honest elections. After over 20 days they don't even keep logs regarding problems that existed. If the shoe was on the other foot I don't think you'd except the results without any questions.

If Dantona had conceded the election would that have stopped the counting of the ballots (or just the provisionals) and/or allowed an early certification of the outcome?

Anyone?

Whether Foy or Dantona took the lead, this election counting stinks. This elections division is the most inept in the State. Browning and his incompentent boss should both be removed from the County payroll. A couple of bozzos to be sure.

This from a guy who can't spell bozo.

As was stated here earlier counties have until 12/5 to certify, nothing's late unless that date is missed, and no election will be final until there is certification.

If given the choice between speed and accuracy, I'll take accuracy.

The only issue I am aware of in this election is the length of time it took to count all the absentee ballots. This seems to be more of a manpower issue since the Registrar simply underestimated the number of absentee ballots that would be returned. I'm not happy that it took so long and it is something that needs to be addressed before the next election. At the same time, however, there is no reason to believe that the election results have been inaccurate. Besides, I agree with Voter that I'd rather have an accurate count than a quick count. And Voter is also correct that all counties have until 12/5 to certify their election results, which means there is nothing technically wrong with counties taking a few weeks to get their final votes tallied.

Am I happy that it took so long to count absentee ballots? No. We should be able to do better than that.

Do I think there was anything unfair or inaccurate about the process? No. Every election will have hiccups, especially when we are converting to an entirely new ballot system. But every voter was able to cast their ballot whether at a precinct or through the absentee process. And every vote (pending the final verification of the provisional ballots) was counted.

If Jim Dantona thinks that the final vote tally, for whatever reason, was inaccurate he can demand (and pay for) a recount. But I will disagree with Brian on this one, since I don't think you launch an investigation into voting problems unless you have first documented that there actually were problems. Otherwise every election would require a full investigation. What exactly are we suppose to be investigating anyway?

And I'd also like to add that the Dantona supporters did not raise any of these concerns over how ballots were handled and logs were tracked until Dantona fell behind in the vote count. When it looked like he had won these same supporters seemed quite satisfied with the process. I have a hard time believing that any of them would be expressing these concerns if the final vote count had Dantona winning. This just looks like a case of selective outrage and sour grapes.

This election is over and Peter Foy won. Still, I have no problem waiting until the provisional ballots are counted and the final vote tally is certified. After than Jim Dantona should do the classy thing and call Peter Foy and congratulate him on his victory. Then we should all move on to the important issues affecting this community. A mindless investigation, for questionable purposes, will be a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Is it true that Foy is thinking of having Mark Foley as his advisor on childrens issues?

Wow look what I found on Foy's company's website... looks like we hired the right man for the job. Way to go 4th District.

http://www.pcfoy.com.xohost.com/community_relations.htm

I'm totally not impressed with Foy!

Impressed, I ask this line of questions with an open mind, so if you know the answers please help inform me.

Why does a person like Peter Foy ( successful at business, wealthy) create a foundation rather than donate to already established causes?

How does it help everyone involved? Is there a tax incentive? I don't mean to imply foundation creators are just trying to save money on taxes, because every dollar saved on taxes can be donated.

Is there a measure of control? I know there was an issue with The United Way and the Boy Scouts a few years back.

Is it targeted giving where groups don't already exist?

At one point should a person set up a foundation? Is there some sound advice you can give? I am sure many readers donate to a variety of causes and charities and any tips can help us all.

Thanks for the information. I am glad that Peter Foy has been able to help out around the country.

Kathy, I'd be surprised if you have done half of what Foy has.

Seriously cant you just be glad there are people like Foy who are out there, helping others?

Let go of the bitterness Kathy.

I agree that people like Foy (and Dantona too) should be commended for their community involvement. The idea of bashing somebody for their charity works seems a little ridiculous. Anyone who wants to say these guys aren't doing enough should be willing to put up their own resume to be scrutinized against theirs.

As to why Foy chose to create his own foundation instead of contributing to existing charities, I have no idea. I suppose the same question could be asked of Jim Dantona and Baseballers Against Drugs. Certainly there are lots of existing youth-oriented anti-drug programs. Perhaps there are some organizational or tax advantages. Then again, Foy and Dantona get a lot more press by having their own organizations rather than simply writing a check to an existing program. It probably makes for good politics to have a charity with your name on the letterhead.

I can't believe that Bubba Kidd thinks that Foy did it for political reasons.

Yes, let's bring a little clarity to this situation. The election is not over until all the ballots have been counted. Jim Dantona has made no wild claims, nor has he asked any unreasonable questions.

Let's also be clear that the Registrar was, at a minimum, woefully unprepared and understaffed to properly handle this election. There are many reports of machine breakdowns and absentee ballots being mishandled, all over the county. I know of several reports that were made to the SOS office in Sacramento, and they are investigating.

Riverside County also had a large number of unexpected absentee ballots delivered on election day, and they somehow managed to get through them in a much shorter period of time than we did.

It doesn't hurt for questions to be asked and a review performed. I'm sure everyone can agree that we all want an efficient election system, with the highest level of integrity.

Whatever the final outcome of this race, everyone should be clear on two things. Jim Dantona ran an incredible campaign, and he did it on his own. The Democratic Party didn't come swooping in to his rescue the last 3 weeks, with fancy mailers, slate cards and door hangers, like the Republican Party did for Foy.

Dantona ran a truly bipartisan, community based campaign. He deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished.

But since the Republican Party did their best to make this a partisan race, let's look at the numbers.

Democrats make up exactly 30% of the registered voters in the 4th District. Republicans make up 46%, Decline to State 18%, with the remainder scattered across six other minor parties.

The results as of today, which don't include the provisional ballots: Dantona took 48.5% of the vote. That means a Democrat got 18.5% over the Dem base, in the reddest part of Ventura County. Jim Dantona is one of those rare candidates that blurs the party lines and has a broad base of support.

I can tell you that everyone in the Democratic Party is incredibly proud of him. He's a tremendous asset to this community and county, and I can't wait to see what he's going to do next.

What he is going to do next Laura??

Is that a joke??? Well it will be nothing in this town.

You're right Laura, Jim Dantona did well in a largely Republican District. But what you leave out is that he did well by distancing himself from the Democrat Party, not embracing it.

If you go through his mail and his advertising I defy you to find a reference to his being a Democrat. In fact he talks about Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger, not Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. He went out of his way to talk tough on crime, not oppose capital punishment. He said he was good on gun rights, not that he supported expanding gun bans. He said he would be tough on immigration, not support rights for illegals.

In short he tried to turn himself into a Republican, and did well with the impersonation. And yes, we did support Peter Foy, and you could've supported Dantona, the LA Democrat machine certainly did. In the end we did a better job and our guy won, end of story.

Good luck to you and your party, we'll meet again next election.

Why is it that Jim Dantona's self-proclaimed bi-partisan supporters are constantly bashing republicans? Doesn't sound very bi-partisan to me.

I agree with Mike, Jim Dantona went out of his way in this election to portray himself as a conservative. During the debate he surprised me by repeatedly flashing pictures of himself next to Governor Arnold and Ronald Reagan and then he went on to say he would not support benefits for same-sex couples. I've never heard a Democrat say such things. What struck me is that his position on most issues wasn't much different from Peter Foy. So if Foy is a right-wing extremist, as his supporters claim, then I found it puzzling that Dantona agreed with Foy on a wide range of issues, such as gay marriage, immigration, capital punishment, and gun control.

Joe Lieberman was cast out of the Democratic party for not being true to his party's values. Based on that I'm surprised that all the local Democrats were embracing a candidate like Jim Dantona, who seemed to be opposed to many basic principles of his own party, unless of course his supporters knew was simply saying what he thought would get him elected.

Hey Brian, how come you never had a follow-up thread on the Lieberman victory in Connecticut? All the local democrats were jumping for joy when he lost in the primary and you gave them a forum to voice their opinions. But now that Lieberman prevailed in the general election (as I predicted he would) you and others have been noticably silent on that race. What gives?

Well Osborn, you obviously didn't see all of Dantona's advertising. He didn't try to distance himself the Party, nor did he need to. He's a Democrat and said so many times. Does Arnold talking about Uncle Teddy, and throwing McClintock & Strickland under the bus, make him less of a Republican? ;-)

Dantona's campaign was based on issues in the community. He spoke about real problems like traffic and development in Moorpark, the dump in Simi and people dying because of the mess Rocketdyne left behind. Foy is the one that couldn't keep up and had to go for tired hot button wedge issues - gays, guns and immigration. Yeah, like those are the issues that County Supervisors deal with and influence on a daily basis. Looks like it might have worked for him this time - barely.

What some of you can't seem to grasp is that Democrats don't lock step on issues. Dantona stated his views. I've got no problem with him. It's that whole big tent thing - we actually believe in it.

I dare say that the numbers in this race show a clear crack in the Repug facade of superiority, and the myth that Dems can't compete in Red areas like Simi. Looks to me like plenty of Reps broke ranks and voted for the Dem.

And Bubba Kidd, whoever you are, I never claimed to be a bipartisan supporter. I'm straight Dem, right down to my lacey blue undies.

Osborn, I'll see you on the playing field next time. Bring your gear - I'm not afraid to throw inside and I've got a wicked fastball.

Lacy blue undies, eh? That certainly beats my red necktie hands down.

I love a Dem that talks dirty! Good for you Laura!

But rather than rehashing the campaign, how about WMI's Expansion Plans, Rocketdyne, Somis, Knolls, Freeway Congestion, Support for SOAR, Youth Activities and all the other issues that the Supervisor CAN have an impact on? What would Mr Foy or Dantona do differently about these issues?

BK,

I didn't know anyone really cared about the Lieberman race still. That is the reason I didn't write about it. Predicting he was going to win wasn't too tough as he wasn't ever behind in any polls I saw.

I saw Jim Dantona mailers talking about how proud he was to be a Democrat. I saw mailers from people like Raymond Cruz being proud to be connected to Democrats ( even though his party endorsed him), but I never got a single Foy mailer because I didn't have the magic R next to my name.

Foy ran a partisan campaign and it was effective. Running a partisan campaign is a decent idea when you outnumber the other party. I am not going to argue that.

Bubba, Jim Dantona said he was against gay marriage. That puts him in the mainstream of Democratic leaders. He did say he wouldn't vote to revoke benefits from same sex county employees. Peter Foy said if it came up he wouldn't vote for the benefits. I have the video if you want to see it. If I misunderstood it I am sure you will let me know. Click on my name to view it.

Brian,

You are correct, Dantona did say he was against same-sex marriage but was not interested in revoking same-sex benefits. What I found interesting is that Dantona said that the same-sex benefits was a CALPERS issue and had little to do with the County of Ventura. But that is incorrect. The Board of Supervisors voted in favor of extending benefits to same-sex couples, which is totally within their jurisdiction. CALPERS does not automatically extend those benefits, it is up to the County to define eligibility. Foy said that he would vote against those benefits if it ever came up again for a vote. Dantona skated around the issue by claiming it was outside the jurisdiction of the Supervisors, which is simply untrue.

Personally I'm not really all that concerned over the same-sex benefits issue, however I would have preferred Dantona to be more direct with voters on his position rather than falsely claiming that it is something out of his control.

On the Lieberman issue, I was virtually alone on this blog claiming that Lieberman was going to win in the runoff. Perhaps it should have been easy to predict an eventual Lieberman victory, but that result clearly wasn't obvious to a lot of regulars around here who stubbornly insisted that Lamont would prevail in the general election. It was also an issue about whether Democrats were intolerant of other ideas within their party.

The Lieberman race didn't generate much media coverage at the end, but it certainly was a hot issue in the press and on this blog during the primary. At the same time, the Dantona/Foy race is not generating much media coverage these days, yet we have continued discussing it on this blog because it has been such a hot topic in the past. I just found it curious that the Lieberman race was debated so strongly during the primary but you never followed up with a thread after the general election. Maybe nobody cares anymore, but I think the results of that race have some strong implications for the Democratic party that are being ignored by the mainstream press. I also find it curious how the mainstream press made this a front-page issue when Lamont was won the primary but quickly buried the story when Lieberman came back in the runoff.

The Democratic Party is a big tent. Look at new senators like former Reagan appointee Jim Webb, and rancher Jon Tester.

I think Lieberman winning wasn't that thrilling because he was expected to for the last 60 days at least of the campaign.

I thought it was worthy of discussion because it wasn't an obvious fact what would happen ( a few months before the primary Lamont was a nobody in the polls), but after during the general election it was too obvious as not one poll had Lamont ahead that I remember seeing.

I know it seems strange but in light of the Democrats taking both houses a Lieberman win wasn't something I thought many people cared about.

Besides you, the only person talking about it is me. And the only reason I am is because you brought it up.

BK,

I watched the video again. Jim Dantona said " In no way, shape or form" would he take away benefits.

My impression was Peter Foy if given the chance would vote against some families having benefits whereas Jim Dantona would vote to keep them.

Didn't you get the same impression?

Brian,

Re-read my post from November 29, 2006 10:24 PM. In it I stated, "Dantona did say he was against same-sex marriage but was not interested in revoking same-sex benefits".

During the debate Jim Dantona tried to make this a non-issue by claiming that same-sex benefits was a CALPERS issue and not within the jurisdiction of the county. Maybe he was simply mistaken, but that statement was untrue. The County Board of Supervisors does have the authority to define benefit eligibility and did in fact use that authority to grant benefits to same-sex couples.