Gotta love ballot statements

Al Franken- Farmer ? So thats what they're calling crappy actors these days?

hahaha

Kinda like HBJ saying shes an educator but really is a lawyer

Kinda like saying Tony is a renewable energy businessman when he's really a lobbyist.

Seriously . . . where are the adults? Farmer? Challenging those ballots? I'm sure there are harder calls, but those were all pretty easy.

I guess it is to be expected, but the listeners/readers/Kos-readers-redirected of Minnesota Public Radio have a distinct Democrat bias. I encourage you all to go over and vote fairly, not like partisans, and see the results.

(You like that Brian, I used that word just for you)

Early in the recount, Franken's already narrowing Coleman's margin as of right now.

I'm sorry, but I have very little sympathy for stupid or incompetent voters. If someone is too dumb to follow simple instructions such as filling in a bubble next to a candidate's name, then the vote shouldn't count. And if a person makes an honest mistake, it's easy to ask for a replacement ballot.

Think of it as an intelligence test for voters, one with an extremely low threshold limit. I don't want idiots choosing elected officials, who in turn will be voting on taxes and expenditures totalling billions or trillions of dollars, and who'll be imposing complex laws and regulations on our lives.

If your reasoning is based on the potential outcome of the decisions of such voters, then you'd probably agree that anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 should be disqualified from voting again.

This is one example of how people do not read instructions but then again something as simple as filling in the bubble shouldnt need instructions.
I bet these people never had tests that required you to fill in the bubble when they went to school. This is sad.
I wonder if the voting places put time limits on how long you could be in the box, that could explain these stupid errors.

gopblondie what does it say about the GOP when a "crappy" actor is in a dead heat with a 6 year gop senator? What about Ted Stevens in Alaska getting beaten by a young dem mayor? It says this aint no Country for old angry white men anymore, the GOP as a party is dead!

Just received notice that Jackson erased almost 750 votes of Strickland's lead after counting the first 2000 provisional ballots and now trails by about 1700 votes. There appears to be more than 12,000 provisionals remaining.

As a wise Celtic sage once said, "Impetuous! Ahhh... Homeric!"

Democratic Farm Labor is the name of the Democratic Party in Minnesota, it isn't a ballot designation. But I do find it funny that a Tony Strickland supporter would be critical of a creative ballot title.

Do you all agree with me that both sides are unjustly throwing out votes?

Daniel,

It would be easy to assume this is another people are careless voting story until you look at the ballots. Some of them have clear intent and yet a campaign is trying to have them thrown out. Go look for yourself.

Brian, I did go and look at the ballots in the story you linked to. The problem with trying to divine "intent" is that sooner or later you get into gray areas. A single check mark shows intent more clearly than a bubble with an X through it (was the person trying to take back the vote or emphasize it?) or two bubbles filled in with one of the names either underlined or struck through (who knows which?).

That's why I favor a "bright line" rule: Either the ballot is filled out correctly, or it doesn't count. If a voter can't read and follow the instructions, then he or she ought to suffer the consequences by losing that vote. Election officials shouldn't have to be mind-readers.

Am I being too hard-nosed about it? If so, I think that's a lot better than being squishy-soft about it. We'd have a lot fewer problems my way, and I don't think it would be harmful to our republic if those people who can't even vote properly were screened out of the process by their own incompetence.

This is very interesting. Everyone should be sure and click on the link to the Minnesota recount story and vote.
Thanks Brian for giving us a look at what the elections offices are having to deal with.

I also like a clear rule. Daniel, I assume you were on the side of the Bush folks in 2000, and against the Gore lawyers who were playing games with all the chads. Though I don't agree with you that people who make mistakes are stupid. Have you never strayed out of the line when filling in a circle?

I'm critical of "creative" ballot titles no matter which party they belong to. If I ever run, I think I'll put down ESL teacher . . .

Owen, I don't want to be too harsh and label every voter "stupid" if he or she simply makes a mistake. (Although there are undoubtedly a lot of stupid voters out there, some of whom are not even competent enough to read and follow simple instructions.)

My main point is that I think voters need to take responsibility for their actions. If they want their votes to count, they should recheck their ballots to catch any errors before submitting them. And if they do find a mistake, they should request a replacement ballot and then fill it out correctly. If they fail to perform this "due diligence", then (stupid or not) they deserve to suffer the consequence of having their votes rejected.

Daniel,

Are you telling me that after looking at all of those ballots in the story you would have disqualified them all? That is indefensible as many of the ballots are filled in correctly.

Both of the campaigns are abusing the rights of voters to try to win the senate seat. Do you agree?

Brian, I certainly did not say that I would reject all of the ballots in the story you linked to. I would actually accept nine out of the fifteen. Here's how I evaluated them:

DAY 2:

#1 -- REJECT. The voter signed his or her name, a violation of Minnesota law.

#2 -- ACCEPT. Nothing says a voter can't use both pencil and pen to mark the same ballot. (However, this could be evidence of fraud on the part of some election worker, and hence should subject Ramsey County to heightened scrutiny.)

#3 -- ACCEPT. The bubble was completely filled in, and the additional X could easily have been an added emphasis by the voter. If the voter wanted to withdraw his vote for Coleman, he should have asked for a replacement ballot.

#4 -- ACCEPT. Even though a name was written in the write-in field, the bubble next to it wasn't marked. Only one bubble was marked, so the ballot should be valid.

DAY 1:

#1 -- ACCEPT. The bubble next to Coleman's name was not sufficiently marked to constitute a second vote.

#2 -- ACCEPT. An incidental smudge should not disqualify a ballot.

#3 -- REJECT. No bubble was filled in.

#4 -- REJECT. Two bubbles were filled in.

#5 -- ACCEPT. Even though a name was written in the write-in field, the bubble next to it wasn't marked. Only one bubble was marked, so the ballot should be valid.

#6 -- REJECT. No bubble was filled in.

#7 -- REJECT. Two bubbles were filled in.

#8 -- ACCEPT. The dot appears to be an incidental mark rather than an intentional double vote.

#9 -- ACCEPT. This is a vote for Barkley, and an incidental smudge should not disqualify a ballot. It's certainly not a vote for Franken.

#10 -- ACCEPT. This is a vote for Barkley. The dot appears to be an incidental mark rather than an intentional double vote.

#11 -- REJECT. Two bubbles were filled in.

In general, when there are smudges or incidental marks, I'd let the optical scanner make the decision, so as to remove human subjectivity and bias. I assume that the scanners have pre-defined high and low thresholds. For example, a bubble which is less than 10% darkened would be considered unmarked, while a bubble which is more than 30% darkened would be considered marked. Hence a valid vote would require one bubble to be over 30% and all other bubbles to be under 10%. (At least that's the way I'd design the hardware and software.)

The left's hypocrisy is endless.

The left wants the non-votes counted for Franken.

At the same time they have no problem with an isolated minority going to court to throw out 52% of voters who properly filled in their ballot to vote yes on 8.

These people are nuts.

So defund the left, since you are fine with 52% deciding things in California I take it you will vote for the initiative that is coming to lower to 55% the vote to pass the California budget? Now watch the hypocrisy folks as defund the left craps in their pants over this one! The "right" that defund is part of has destroyed our economy and tried to destroy the Constitution. The RICO laws should be used against the GOP and they should be declared as a criminal enterprise, just like the mafia! The "right" has defunded and bankrupted the enire country, remember everytime you vote that the GOP is responsible for the current economic crisis!

Defund the left = a loser!

Haven't you heard Sean Hannity says that the economic woes we are in right now is the "Obama Recession."

This person "Defund the left" didn't look at the ballots. Anyone with simple reading comprehension skills could tell that both sides are trying to eliminate ballots without good reasons. Before you start with your next round of babbling click on the link so you know what the rest of are talking about at least.

Or just try to disrupt threads with non sequiturs that prove you care not for intelligent discussion or that you didn't actually look at the topic.

Let me try:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi, this is Defund the Left. What do you think of the electoral college?

DEFUND THE LEFT!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Go look at the ballots like Daniel did and come back.

wojopaul,

It was actually Rush Limbaugh who made that comment, but, then again, we wouldn't expect you to know that.

Regarding "Defund the Left's" comments on Prop. 8, he's absolutely right. These guys just want the votes counted their way. That's not democracy, that's leftist fascism.

Flamo,

Do you agree that both Coleman and Franken are having people attempt to throw out votes for silly reasons?

If you want to discuss Proposition 8 there is an entry about the court case a few entries below.

Brian,

I don't doubt it at all. It's a tit for tat mentality in politics, as you know.

I already commented on the Prop. 8 thread. Now I get to see all the blow back.

Hey Brian,

You might want to check out the Prop. 8 thread. It doesn't seem to be functioning properly. I clicked on the comments and none of them come up.

Unless you've banned me from your blog too (jk):>)

I will check into it. You are not banned from this blog.

Flamo,

I checked into it and I don't see any of your comments marked spam or pending. Are any of your comments missing?

Try posting from a different IP and tell me if they still don't post.

Brian,

You're right. It seems to be working fine now. A couple of hours ago it wasn't opening the comments for some reason.

I know I'm not banned from your blog. I was just kidding. It was really just a poke at Marie Lakin who has been deleting all my posts from her blog for about a week now.

Yeah, Marie and I seemed to get along just fine until I happened to express a disagreement with her on that tobacco protest shoving match. Actually, it wasn't so much of a disagreement, but rather a situation where I wasn't willing to accept her version of events at face value. She doesn't seem to take too kindly to people who challenge her opinions. Brian seems to be a better sport, even if I do piss him off on a regular basis. At least I can disagree with him without risk of having all of my comments purged.

According to the Star, Mongo's comments are now going straight to my blog's Spam filter. Mongo needs to think about why some of his comments posted under his many, many pseudonyms over the past year and a half have been deleted from both Brian's blog and mine. Perhaps it had nothing to do with simple disagreements and everything to do with their inappropriateness and harassing nature.

Bubba, to my knowledge, you have not posted on my blog for months and nothing you have written on my blog has been purged.

I am not planning on commenting any further about this.

So, you're not offering further comments on this, eh, Marie? How convenient a position to take.

I am completely forthright and honest with my comments and opinions and will continue to be. I realize that's difficult for some people to swallow. Particularly, when they act to disrupt the picture perfect world Marie likes to paint of the City of Ventura and its top managers and elected officials on her blog. In my view, that's not a blog, that's a public relations tool.

Given your past history on this blog of harassing women Mongo, it's my guess that you qualify as Spam.

How about some examples of harassing women, instead of vague accusations, Cry Baby (aka Katie)? I'm waiting...

I think the big issue for Marie, as Bubba, NostraDemus, and others have confirmed, is that if you disagree with her too strongly she is perfectly willing to cut you off. That's not allowing for free and open discussion of an issue. It's being narrow-minded.

Brian doesn't do this, for example. The only times I've seem him intervene on a thread is when people are getting way off topic (like we are here, sorry Brian) or when people are getting too personal or nasty with each other.

That isn't the case with Marie's blog. She is far more protective and thin-skinned sometimes. After a while, when folks begin to realize this, they will stop posting on her blog.

No Mango, Cry Baby isn't me.

Quit whining.

Here, I'll give you something to talk about - how about commenting on TS's reduced lead? Does HBJ have a chance to win? How come everyone is ignoring the count?

It's not a meaningful enough turn to even comment on, Katie. Now almost all of the Santa Barbara County ballots have been counted and the only ones remaining are from Ventura County. It's not likely that HBJ will have enough of a swing with these ballots to overcome Tony, but we'll see...

Another impression:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi, this is Defund the left,

What do you think of socialism?

DEFUND THE LEFT!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I've said before, anyone should have the right to express their opinion, no matter if you agree or disagree with them. I'm against censorship, even moreso on blogs.

Katie, it was over days ago in the 19th SD race. The only remaining question is whether Tony wins by 1300 votes or 2300 votes, and does anyone really care that much? If his final margin was less than 25 votes, or perhaps even less than 50 votes, HBJ would be willing to pay for a full recount. That could be exciting. But instead it's turning out to be a pretty clear-cut victory.

Daniel, I think there is a state law that initiates recounts if the margin is less than 1/2 a percent.

I don't think anyone can claim victory when the margins are sooooo slim.

CAP/Mongo - blogs can do whatever they want and what occurred isn't censorship. Quit being abusive.

Abusive? An interesting choice of words from someone who's regularly over the top with scurrilous comments and false accusations.

The point is that bloggers are going to become less interested in posting on a blog where the sponsor continually uses her delete button to regulate the flow of thoughts and opinions. That's all I'm saying.

Blog moderators would seem to have a huge responsibility between balancing the free flow of information and removing posts that are clearly inappropriate, off topic and designed to harass others. It would appear Ms. Lakin has good reason to monitor Mr. Flamo and I have seen no indication from perusing her blog that she deletes opinions contrary to her own.

Perhaps Mr. Flamo should be grateful that he has not been banned altogether from posting. One would also need to question why the urgent need to post on blogs consumes him.

I concur with cyber bullies.

If it was just me, you might have a point, Cyber Bullies. But, unfortunately, others have complained here about the same thing happening to them on Marie's blog, including Bubba Kidd, NostaDemus, juandaveras, John Doe, and others. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

I doubt Marie erased Bubba Kidd's comments. Am I wrong?

Brian,

Please see Bubba's comment below (an earlier post on this thread). Read the last sentence, in particular:

"Yeah, Marie and I seemed to get along just fine until I happened to express a disagreement with her on that tobacco protest shoving match. Actually, it wasn't so much of a disagreement, but rather a situation where I wasn't willing to accept her version of events at face value. She doesn't seem to take too kindly to people who challenge her opinions. Brian seems to be a better sport, even if I do piss him off on a regular basis. At least I can disagree with him without risk of having all of my comments purged."

I would ask you then to provide written evidence of your claims as Ms. Lakin clearly stated blogger Bubba Kidd had not posted on her blog in months and she had not deleted any posts. I do not believe blogger NostraDemus has had posts on the Making Waves blog deleted there but rather edited on the Dennert blog. He could confirm that. The other bloggers you mention do not post on the Dennert blog.

Again one would likely need to question your obssesive behavior when it comes to cyberspace.

I'll let Bubba speak for himself. He does this quite well, in case you haven't noticed.

My so-called "obsession" with blogging is just one person's opinion, as far as I'm concerned. Katie Teague does far more posting here than I do, as an example, and spends a heckuva lotta time attacking me as well. Would you not consider this an obsession? If I can be so bold, you seem a tad bit obsessed with this whole issue, Cyber Bullies.

Mango, you stalk me from thread to thread and constantly invoke my name. As you are now and did earlier in this thread. Actions have consequences - suck it up.

Hey, Katie and Marie, here's your chance to get even with Mongo:

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/nov/23/star-seeking-internet-innuendo-tales/

Spill your guts, girls. That Star reporter would love it!

Flamo,

I don't think she has ever deleted comments from Bubba Kidd.

I delete comments regularly, most often for language or giving out personal information.

I have deleted many of yours in the past, but for the last several months you have been more respectful here.

I know you weren't censored here or elsewhere for you political opinion. Anyways, feel free to talk all you want about the city of Ventura on my blog. Let me know if there are political stories I am missing.

LOL Cyber - I saw that! I wonder what kind of response he is getting. Marie is getting slimed right now. She has proven time and time again that she doesn't haven't a problem with differing viewpoints but draws the line eventually at abusive behavior or sexually inappropriate comments.

Katie, I haven't researched the details of the new recount law, but it generally requires a recount of 10% of the ballots if the outcome is within half a percent. What happens thereafter depends on whether the 10% recount statistically confirms the initial results.

However, losing candidates also have the option of paying for a recount on a day-by-day basis. They can pick the precincts to start with, and they can decide at the end of every day whether to keep shelling out money or to concede. In order to overturn the results, they must pay for a complete recount; they can't just stop in the middle if they suddenly take the lead. But if they do change the outcome after a complete recount, their money is refunded. It's a very fair system.

If only a handful of votes separated the two candidates, it would make sense for HBJ to pay the tens of thousands of dollars needed for a partial or full recount. That's a pittance compared to the money each side has already spent, so the risk/reward ratio would demand it. But given the size of Tony's lead, a candidate-paid recount would be an obvious waste of money, so it's not going to happen.

Thanks, Brian. Again, I'd let Bubba speak for himself on his experiences on the Lakin blog. I'm sure he'll weigh in on this eventually. I will continue to post on your blog and I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak on local issues here, particularly those involving the City of Ventura.

Katie, you again exemplify your obsession with me by your continued banter here. While I can understand your fascination with me, you go a bit too far sometimes.

As for Marie's blog, I've said all I want to say on that issue here. I'll let my fellow bloggers judge the facts for themselves from here.

I was never on this thread. I rest my case

By Mongo Flamo on November 22, 2008 5:59 PM
How about some examples of harassing women, instead of vague accusations, Cry Baby (aka Katie)? I'm waiting...

When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.

A number of key factors have been identified:
False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.

Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.

False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

And I rest mine:

"By Katie Teague on November 15, 2008 10:34 PM

Mango - Thanks to this handy list, I see that you are assuming the #6 fake identify (name) Conscience. I believe Brian said he was Feral Cat so you'll need to strike that one.

At least it isn't government work hours right now.

By Other Aliases on November 13, 2008 9:33 AM
Mongo, GOPBlondie, Jill Dominque, Somebody, (name)lied, (name)conscience, Yes on 8, No at H8, Deception, Feral Cat, Future Political Stars, Damien Cooper, Jerry Ellings, and the list goes on. He's probably everyone but Bubba Kidd and those that use their real names or the Measure U people. Most of his blogging is done using taxpayer paid time and equipment."

The fascination taking over,
passions now the drive.
This thing is now demanding,
more intensive time.
The fixations become addictive,
without it I'd be lost.
Is mania taking over?
Am I a maniac?

It's all I think about now,
throughout the day and night.
With fervor it is pushing me,
holding onto me tight.
Keystrokes taking over,
with enthusiasm and zeal.
Am I crazed by this compulsion?
Or am I crazy?

It excites me and delights me,
My adrenaline it makes flow.
With eagerness I pursue it,
I know its every detail.
I cannot live without it,
it's everything I need,
Is it now an obsession?
Am I now obsessed?

What will happen next?

Will Katie unleash another firestorm of accusations at Mongo?

Will Marie ban Mongo for life from her blog?

Will Bubba jump to Mongo's defense while fighting off another round of gopher alerts?

Will Mongo appear as yet another well-disguised pseudonym?

Find out tomorrow, on another exciting episode of - "As The Blog Turns"