“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.”
Haile Selassie
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Unanimous Precinct Votes Pile Up for Wishard Referendum
The Marion County Clerk now lists 498 of 590 precincts as being in. By my count, I'm up to 24 precincts that had unanimous votes for the Wishard referendum, by a total of 1602-0. The largest one-sided vote listed is 179-0 in Precinct 29-15.
You know how hard it is to get a 100% vote in a precinct with 179 votes, for example? Even if you gave explicit directions to all 179people, there would be some ya-hoo who would screw up and vote the wrong way.
Unlike the machine where the Election Board gets a readout that can within a few seconds be reviewed, with regard to the paper ballots the Election Board is just going off the ballot totals that they are given by campaign workers. They generally wouldn't review the actual paper ballots unless there was a recount, which obviously there is not going to be in this case.
I have no doubt those unanimous vote precincts were extremely heavy "yes" precincts. But 24 precincts with unanimous votes totals in favor of the referendum? That's really hard to imagine. My guess is that there were a few "no" votes in those unanimous precincts which were simply not reported in the vote totals submitted to the Clerk's Office. It's something we should be concerned about in future elections.
Anyone should be able to look at the paper ballots in any of the precincts. I'm going to ask to look at some of those unanimous precincts. I've seen lopsided results before but I've never opened a ballot box and seen all the votes cast on one side.
Maybe someone should go out and poll those 179 voters.
Questions like, did you have any problems at the precinct last Tuesday? Or, were the poll workers helpful enough? Or, what was the single most important factor that encouraged you to approve the new Wishard?
You're assuming that all the ballots are marked "yes." What I am saying is that there is a possibility of a simple disconnect between how the ballots were marked and what was reported. That's the most likely place for error, if any. You don't need to interview anyone. You just look at the paper ballots in those precincts.
6 comments:
Maybe these are the precincts were free lunch is served, or free drinks?
You know how hard it is to get a 100% vote in a precinct with 179 votes, for example? Even if you gave explicit directions to all 179people, there would be some ya-hoo who would screw up and vote the wrong way.
Don't you just love paper ballots? By any chance will anyone do an audit of the vote? Nah,
who needs due diligence!
Jon,
Unlike the machine where the Election Board gets a readout that can within a few seconds be reviewed, with regard to the paper ballots the Election Board is just going off the ballot totals that they are given by campaign workers. They generally wouldn't review the actual paper ballots unless there was a recount, which obviously there is not going to be in this case.
I have no doubt those unanimous vote precincts were extremely heavy "yes" precincts. But 24 precincts with unanimous votes totals in favor of the referendum? That's really hard to imagine. My guess is that there were a few "no" votes in those unanimous precincts which were simply not reported in the vote totals submitted to the Clerk's Office. It's something we should be concerned about in future elections.
Anyone should be able to look at the paper ballots in any of the precincts. I'm going to ask to look at some of those unanimous precincts. I've seen lopsided results before but I've never opened a ballot box and seen all the votes cast on one side.
Maybe someone should go out and poll those 179 voters.
Questions like, did you have any problems at the precinct last Tuesday? Or, were the poll workers helpful enough? Or, what was the single most important factor that encouraged you to approve the new Wishard?
The answers might prove quite illuminating.
Varan,
You're assuming that all the ballots are marked "yes." What I am saying is that there is a possibility of a simple disconnect between how the ballots were marked and what was reported. That's the most likely place for error, if any. You don't need to interview anyone. You just look at the paper ballots in those precincts.
Post a Comment