Ohio To Go Through Statewide Vote Recount After All

[Pale_Rider]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2004/local/11/16/recount.html

A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable after a pair of third-party candidates said they have collected enough money to pay for it.

The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December.

Wonder if the recount will be significantly different? Can the election results be decertified after the results of recount are (if) made public?

[LSparkle]

1. Have they even counted all the ballots once yet?

Including military, provisional and absentee?

[mongo]

3. Not yet

[ClintonTyree]

4. Then how the hell................

can they certify the election? I'd think counting all the ballots and making sure there were no illegalities would be steps number 1 and 2.

[mongo]

11. steps 1 and 2

Were to purge the voter rolls and reduce the number of voting machines in historically democratic precincts. Delaying certification as long as possible is step 3.

[ava27]

39. Military votes!!!

That's where Kerry will win it. All these young men and women coming home hate Bush for what he put them through. Kerry will win because of their votes. We NEED to get the military votes counted.

[bloom]

2. around here - for the Baron Hill recount

all the machines/votes are secured by the State Police, I think.


It sounds odd to wait.

[intheflow]

5. Haven't the 3rd parties subpeona'd the black boxes?

Maybe that's why they're in police custody.

[progressiveBadger]

8. I think it's Ohio law

for recounts to wait for the official certification first.

[UpInArms]

6. get prepared for another illegitimate squatter-in-residence

and watch for terrorist attacks the day the report is due to be published - that's what happened last time.

The NORC report was due to be reported on Sept 12, 2001 - it was completely obliterated from the minds of the public because of the events of 9/11 - to be published so much later and so poorly written that no one ever made the connection that *Co was no elected.

Me? I'm going to wear my :tinfoilhat: proudly, as I am a longstanding member of the Grassy Knoll Club.

[TrustingDog]

31. o cripes, I didn't know that...

have a link, more info? I dogpiled and there's all kinds of Norc reports.

I do believe more, in every day, that Bush Made It Happen On Purpose, tho. Proud of my tin foil hat.

[UpInArms]

44. I can't find a link - all I can tell you is what happened

the morning of September 11, 2001.

I was sending an email every day, requesting that the report be released - had been sending my morning emails every day for about 2 weeks - was online at that moment doing just that (the computer that I was using then has long since died and taken my email records with it), but there I was, sending my emails to the consortium and I got an email from the Washington Post stating that a plane had flown into the World Trade Center Tower (#1) - television was not on - but I was waiting for the report :(

Everything changed that day.

Here's the closest newspaper story regarding the issue:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/21/wgore21.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/10/21/ixhomer.html

Did Al Gore win after all? US newspapers would rather not say

THE most detailed analysis yet of the contested Florida votes from last year's presidential election - with the potential to question President Bush's legitimacy - is being withheld by the news organisations that commissioned it.


Results of the inspection of more than 170,000 votes rejected as unreadable in the "hanging chad" chaos of last November's vote count were ready at the end of August.

The study was commissioned early this year by a consortium including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times, the nation's most powerful newspapers, and the broadcaster CNN.

It was regarded as a means of supplying final answers to the nagging questions over President Bush's razor-thin victory margin. The cost was more than £700,000.

Now, however, spokesmen for the consortium say that they decided to "postpone" the story of the analysis by the National Opinion Research Centre (NORC) at the University of Chicago for lack of resources and lack of interest in the face of the enormous story of the September 11 attacks and the subsequent "war on terrorism".

Newspapers were saying last week that the final phase of the analysis, the actual counting of the 170,000 votes, had been "postponed" but would become known at an appropriate time.

...more...

and from http://www.dogonvillage.com/dogonforum/DCForumID7/42.html

excerpt:

New York Times, Washington Post suppress media recount of Florida vote
By Barry Grey
25 September 2001
A consortium of major American news organizations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, has decided to withhold the results of its recount of ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The consortium had planned to publish its report this week, and although its decision to suppress its own findings has received virtually no media attention, the reason is made clear in a September 23 column by New York Times Washington bureau chief Richard L. Berke.

In a move that might have stoked the partisan tensions-but now seems utterly irrelevant-a consortium of new organizations, including The New York Times, had been scheduled this week to release the results of its ambitious undertaking to recount the Florida presidential ballots. (That has been put on hold indefinitely).”

In other words, the Times and its counterparts in the consortium have decided to conceal from the American people facts damaging to the Bush administration’s claims to political legitimacy.

...more good reading...

[LiberalFighter]

45. Thems the ones to shoot... thems terrorists those squatters

[RyomaSakamoto]

7. NEWSFLASH: Bush Wins the ELECTRICAL VOTE

again... now, back to your lives citizens... focus on 06/08

peace

[Eloriel]

12. That's not the main issue -- UNLESS you really don't care

whether or not you will actually be able to VOTE for someone and have it count?

Democracy itself is at risk with these voting machines and the massive vote suppression efforts by the GOP.

Take a look:

VOTE FRAUD Links - a DU Compendium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=201&topic_id=1984#

VOTE FRAUD Links Compendium - Thread #2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=201x3223

[RyomaSakamoto]

14. having ONLY Electrical Votes IS the main issue

to me, too. give'm hell Eloriel :toast:

btw: thanks for the links :hi:

[barb162]

46. so true!

it is so depressing to think one's vote is not counted. Why even bother voting the next time?

[lamp_shade]

13. "Electrical"? Vote

Yup... I like it... I can picture it. ZZZZZZZZZAP. Fizzle.

[Komrade _azul]

33. is that like a bug zapper?

A BUSH ZAPPER!!

[eowyn_of_rohan]

36. Do you mean electrical JOLT?

Bush wins the electrical jolt? Like Texas -style?

[Dr Fate]

16. Dont care. Investigate and REFORM the nation wide voting "glitches"

Anyone who is not for this is hiding somthing.

[RyomaSakamoto]

21. ditto

but i do CARE that the ELECTRICAL VOTE is gonna decide this election, AGAIN.

peace

[Dr Fate]

25. They determine the Electoral vote by counting individual votes.

So now you are just talking in circles.

Of course Bush somehow got the electoral vote- and all the "glitches" were in his favor.

All just a big coincidence, I 'spose. Cant know for sure until there is an open investigation.

[Dr Fate]

26. OH CRAP_ YOU said "ELECTRICAL!!!"

Opps- my bad!!! :)

[RyomaSakamoto]

28. my bad... i shoulda put it in quotes, D'oh!

i was start'n to worry though, i thought the 'man' took over yours and E's accounts :scared:

:toast:

[Tace]

19. Flame Baiter!

Peace

[RyomaSakamoto]

20. irony

poor attempt, sure but it certainly gets to the crux of the matter, imho.

psst... pass the word ;->

[VegasWolf]

41. Didn't awol call it the Electrical vote?

[Almost_there]

9. I thought that all votes in OH have now been counted

I thought that they kept the 99% of precincts reporting until all votes had been counted, except for provisionals. Absentee ballots are all counted when that number hits 100%, but, provis are only counted in a recount or in a situation where the margin of victory is smaller than the total number of provisionals, or am I mistaken?

I also think that the certification can happen because of the margin of victory, the recount is automatic and certification witheld if the difference is either .5% or .25%, something like that. Since the margin of victory was significant enough not to trigger any recount, and this is more for peace of mind than anything, they will certify, I'm sure. Of course, if somehow, the result came back different with Kerry winning (as if they'd let that happen!) I honestly have no idea what they would do.

~Almost

[fidgeting wildly]

10. Geez, I hate the f'ing media!

A statewide recount of the presidential vote appears inevitable...

Could they sound any more negative? WTF? They WANT the people of Ohio to think this is a bad thing. Those pesky third party candidates are trying to sully our picture perfect system! Waaaaah!

Damn librul media.

[TheIdiot]

42. WCPO, Channel 9, Cincinnati...

... is definitely not considered part of the "librul" media. They are linked to the Cincy Post which endorsed Bush.
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/10/23/edita10-23-2004.html

[kskiska]

15. Well, I hope they finish up by Inauguration Day

If not, * will have to be impeached to get him out, and you know that won't happen.

[Longgrain]

17. DOH!

Early December?!?!?!?

Doesn't the vote have to be vallified long before then and the electoral college meet on the 13th?

:wtf:

I've long given up hope on a Kerry win, but, WHAT ABOUT THE VOTERS!!!! Don't they deserve better?

Longgrain

Edited fer Speling...

[hippiechick]

22. vallified ?

:shrug:


:hippie:

[Longgrain]

27. Me Bad...

I meant "Validate"...

I'm still new at this whole message board thingy and I'm quite an erratic typer with no regards to what I'm typing...
Sorry hippie...

[hippiechick]

29. No problem ...

It's been a long day and my eyes are spinning anyway ...

:hi:



:hippie:

[TheIdiot]

43. Vallified...?

Isn't that synonymous with veridated?

[consciousobjector]

18. got this email from Ohio's Secretary of State office this afternoon...

as a reply to email I sent Saturday questioning the handling of provisional ballots:

Susan,

There is not new ruling in Cuyahoga or any other county. I think someone just wants to start something to get everyone riled up. See below for true information:


No registration is main reason provisional ballots rejected

By MARK WILLIAMS
The Associated Press
11/15/2004, 6:50 p.m. ET


COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Most of the presidential election provisional ballots rejected so far came from people not registered to vote, election officials said on Monday.

Those people typically thought they were registered to vote in another county or another address, officials said.

Other reasons some of the 155,337 ballots were rejected included missing information such as addresses or signatures and people voting in precincts where they do not live.

"Some people thought because they had changed their mailing address at the post office, or had changed their utilities, that they had done everything necessary to be eligible to vote," said Nancy Moore, deputy director of the Belmont County Board of Elections in eastern Ohio. "They still have to change their address at the board of elections. We're not mindreaders."

"They swear up and down they're registered to vote and they're not," said Bill Thompson, deputy elections director in Pike County.

Unofficial vote totals show President Bush beating Democrat John Kerry by 136,000 votes in Ohio and Kerry has conceded there aren't enough outstanding votes to swing the state his way.

Some people, though, said they were holding out hope until all votes were counted. Lawyers with Kerry's campaign were in Ohio to check into voters' concerns about ballots, but said they weren't trying to challenge the election.

Most of Ohio's 88 counties are continuing the process of verifying the ballots cast by people who said they were registered but whose names did not appear on rolls on Election Day.

Of the 11 counties that have completed checking ballots, 81 percent, or 4,277 out of 5,310 ballots, are valid, according to a survey Monday by The Associated Press. Most of the counties are in rural areas.

Other counties that have completed partial tallies reported that most of the provisional ballots were being counted. In 2000, about 87 percent of provisional ballots were counted.

This year, Belmont County rejected 42 percent of the 1,067 provisional votes cast while other counties that completed their count showed percentages topping 90 percent.

Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located, has processed 40 percent, or 9,719 votes, of its 24,788 provisional ballots and rejected a third, according to a board tally. Most are being rejected because the voters were not registered.

In Montgomery County, 6,125 of the 8,000 provisional ballots processed so far are valid. Of the 1,875 invalid ballots, more than 1,000 were rejected because the people were not registered and 685 were rejected because voters went to the wrong precinct, according to the board.

The board still has to count 1,227 ballots.

Before the election, Democrats lost a court appeal seeking to allow people to cast provisional ballots in precincts where they do not live.

Votes cast in the wrong precinct made up the smallest portion of rejected ballots in many counties, which election officials attributed to poll workers directing people to correct voting places, public education campaigns and heightened media attention about provisional voting regulations.

"People were aware of the provisional ballots and they really tried to get in the correct precinct," said Janet Brenneman, director of Delaware County Board of Elections.

The counties have until Dec. 1 to complete their final count.

A third party was already promising to ask for a recount of the Ohio vote.

Green Party candidate David Cobb said on Monday that the party has raised the $113,600 needed to ask for the recount.

Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik have said they were concerned about reports of problems in Ohio's voting process.

Cobb must make his request to all the county election boards. The count cannot begin until the vote is officially certified, which can happen as soon as Dec. 3, said Carlo LoParo, spokesman for Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell.


what a crock! At least we get a recount, but will it catch the bbv fraud?

[RyomaSakamoto]

23. sounds like they are nervous

good

[tavalon]

32. as they should be, as they should be n/t

[xchrom]

24. seems to me they'd be ready for that

re: the bbv fraud.
one can hope their not -- but with the machines with the police...
well, doesn't make me comfortable.

[nodehopper]

30. what about the birth certificate deal?

[Longgrain]

34. From one newbie to another...

Welcome Consciousobjector...:hi:

Incredible post BTW:toast:

[purduejake]

35. Why can we only count on 3rd parties to help us?

The Dems are the largest party on the left and have the most power, so why in the hell don't they do anything?

[rfrrfrrfr]

38. Couple things

BBV's Fraud audits are a seperate issue from recounting and overturning the election.

IF there is fraud and it took place where we think it did,The optiscan machines, then yes a hand recount will catch the error.

Whether the errors are enough to overturn the outcome of the election remains to be seen.

And lets be honest here with all the miscounts/errors, no longer isolated to just one or two places, with state initiatieve local gov't races or federal senate/house races does anyone here really think that for some odd reason the presidential vote is somehow magically immune to these errors.

At this point I think every state should do a hand recount of all ballots on all issues just to make sure they got the counts that are verifiable correct.

[Samantha]

37. Will the Secretary of State take a play from the Supreme Court's playbook?

Run out the clock. Wait until there are about two hours left for a recount before the Safe Harbor date?

How long will a recount of all the votes in Ohio take? Will the absentee ballots be recounted after the provisional? Or will the Secretary of State take a play out of Jeb's playbook -- there are not enough absentee ballots to change the results of the election; therefore, we don't need to count them?

[Lizzie Borden]

40. He sure appears to me

to be a smarmy s.o.b. I wouldn't turn my back on him.

[IndianaGreen]

49. How can the state certify results before all the ballots are counted?

Ohio is the new Florida, and there are reports that the vote counting in Florida is also screwed up. For all we know, Kerry may have won Ohio and Florida!

[Chimpanzee]

54. I personally believe he did win Ohio and FL - but

we may not be able to prove it. The 4th Reich lives!

[Wordie]

47. OK, so now I'm confused again. Will the recount have no effect on results?

<snip>
The recount would be conducted after the election results are certified in early December.

Huh?

Because if it is done *after* certification, then what is the point? Maybe someone has gotten that mixed up, do you think? Because I see no reason for anyone writing a law to provide for recounts that would be done for no reason. Unless there is also some provision in OH law to CHANGE the certified number if the recount comes up with a different outcome, that just seems like it MUST be wrong. Does anybody know?

It seems very difficult in all of this to wade through so much unverified information, and to try to sort it all out.

[IndianaGreen]

48. The recount must be done BEFORE certification

otherwise what is the point. There is an increasing likelihood that Bush may have lost Ohio!

[Wordie]

50. That's the only way it makes sense to me, too, but AP has it the other way

The original post in this thread quotes an article in OH media and when you follow the link, it's an AP story. I guess they made a mistake?

It just MUST be a mistake. How could it be otherwise?

[rfrrfrrfr]

51. No that is incorrect.

Each state has different recount rules, but in General.

A hand recount can not take place until the vote is certified. Once the Vote is certified a candidate may request a recount they generally have so many days to do so and there are usually fees associated unless its an automatic one. If hand recounts do take place prior to certification it is usually due to errors discovered during canvasing for the initial final tallies.

Then after the recount period there is usually an additional period of time in which the election resluts can be contested. Recounting an election and contesting an election are two different things.

Again who and under what conditions can contest an election varies from state to state. But in general to contest the results the filing party has to have some form of evidence that is admissable in court that there was wrongdoing on the part of one or more parties involved in the election.

So for a quick sort summary.

The states election officials notifies the public that they have counted all the valid votes available to count and here are the totals. This is nothing more than a formality to say here are the totals. It is sort of like asking at a wedding does anyone object to these two people being wed, speak now or forever hold your peace type deal.

At that time, if a party that is eligible to initiate a recount wants they can request a recount at this time for a certain period of time after certification

After the recount request period is over there is an additional period during which the election can be contested.

[Wordie]

52. Thank you so much for clarifying this. Now it makes better sense.

I guess I am remembering (vaguely) something about Katherine Harris and all the mess in FL four years ago. And worrying.

Do you also know about the timing of all this? Shouldn't the certification be made right away? I mean, immediately upon the completion of counting of the provisionals and spoiled ballots. Why does the OP say it would be December? If Blackwell is deliberately dragging his feet on making the certification, isn't there any judge that can order him to make it in a timely manner? And, while we're at it, I've wondered what was the reason for OH to have that delay of 13 days prior to counting the provisionals in their law. What was the reasoning there. Anyone know?

[Chimpanzee]

53. "Can the election results be decertified after the results of recount are

(if) made public?" Posted by Pale_Rider

The results would need to be recertified, which is basically just a signature and maybe a embossed stamp. Which brings up the question:

If they have 155K provisionals in 11,000 precincts they were to start counting Nov 12th (an average of 14 per precinct) why are they not done by know and certified? Why wait until December? Florida has much more votes and they've certified already!!