What The Hell Is Up With New Mexico? Why Aren't The Votes Counted Yet?

[orleans]

my god! i could have done this faster if i had done it all by myself! are they sending registered letters to all the provisional ballot folks and just waiting for that return card in the mail?

wait! let me guess--richardson didn't think people would go out and vote since he had dropped out of the race...oh! oh! i'm right! (4th paragraph)

Colon couldn't offer an estimate for when the tabulation of provisional ballots would be completed but said he was confident the party will beat a Friday deadline for certifying caucus results.

"I'm very optimistic," he said.

Heavy turnout for the Feb. 5 caucus prompted long lines and organizers ran out of ballots at many polling sites. Richardson said he was disappointed that party officials weren't better prepared but felt Colon "has done a good job in rectifying the situation."

"It is obvious that what was not anticipated was that there was such a huge turnout," Richardson said. "Nonetheless, there should have been more ballots, more staff and more volunteers."

The governor said after the counting is finished, he plans to convene a meeting of Democrats, county officials and party leaders to discuss ways to improve the process for future elections.

Richardson feels the February date should remain, as it gives New Mexico early recognition in the presidential race and attracts candidates. He won't support moving it back to June "because then we're irrelevant."

"I do believe it's important to keep the pre-primary early in February," he said. "Perhaps we should resort to the state running it. I'd be open to that."

About 8,000 provisional ballots were deemed cast by registered Democrats and were therefore qualified to be counted as of Tuesday. The Democrats would not say how many more of the 17,276 ballots they had left to qualify.

Volunteers working four-hour shifts confirmed are comparing voters' names against county lists of registered Democrats. A second search was added to compare the names against a statewide database.

"Our volunteers are working very hard to ensure that every
http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8240626

oh blablabla!

[mac2]

1. What they can't count in NM?

Richardson refused to recount the votes when there was a fruad problem in 2004 election for President. That's because he wanted Republicans to win and open the borders. Richardson is no Democrat.

[orleans]

2. i certainly don't know what his intentions were--but i remember

there was a problem. i thought he was told to recount and he said: oops! too late! i already cleared the machines.

[mac2]

6. Exactly

[Quixote1818]

3. Richardson is full of shit there. Everyone knew turnout was going to be off the charts

Richardson sounds like Bush there: "No one anticipated the breach of the levies!"

Richardson is the head of the Democratic party in New Mexico and the buck should stop with him.

[orleans]

4. i thought of the levies line as well. i've had a bug up my ass about him

since 2004 non-recount

[theHandpuppet]

20. I'm really disappointed with Richardson

There's no excuse for this. None. No matter how the votes fall, they should ALL have been counted long ago.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. David Green on his AAR show, Clout, was discussing irregularities

(or not outright corruption) of the voting machines in New Mexico not long ago. He thought it was a test for the general election as far as the vote counting to throw the results to the republicans.

[mac2]

7. TN, NM, and NC had more fraud problems with voting in 2004

than Ohio but it was silenced.

Election fraud in this country is a fact of life today. I don't believe any election winner.

[dsc]

11. actually one of NC's cases hurt a GOP candidate

our problem is fixed.

[mac2]

14. Only one out of many?

[orleans]

8. well, this waiting to see who one nm sounds like richardson

is waiting to see who needs the delegates and then he'll let us know who "won"

it just sounds rather bullshitty to me.

[ORDem]

9. Patience folks. If they get the results out by Friday it'll be in plenty

of time to affect WI if that's what you're worried about (regardless of which camp you're in).

I tend not to get too cranky when volunteers are part of the process.

[TAWS]

12. Ummm

I don't think people will care about an election that happened more than a week ago.

[Arugula Latte]

10. Well, it IS our most populous state and also has several of the U.S.'s largest cities

Oh,wait ...

Nevermind.

[hedgehog]

13. Should we expect any change in the dlegate count? I'm under

the impression that with a race this close the delegates will be split 50-50.

[mac2]

15. 50/50 split is a way to steal elections

Oh well it could have gone either way bull.

[mohc]

16. It decides the allocation of the final delegate

The district delegate counts are pretty much set, and are unlikely to change based on the recount as each candidate had a comfortable lead in the district(s) they lead in. With district delegates, Clinton will have a 1 delegate advantage. With the statewide vote so close, the only reason it matters is that there are an odd number of state wide delegates. Someone must be assigned the final delegate after assigning and equal number to each candidate. That final delegate will go to the statewide winner. So if Obama ends up ahead, they will get the same number of delegates because he will get the final state wide delegate with Clinton having 1 more district delegate. If Clinton is ahead however, she will have a 2 delegate lead with the final state wide delegate and her 1 extra district delegate.

[hedgehog]

17. Thank you. I wasn't aware that it made a difference at this point. nt

[mac2]

18. Yes you tell me about the process but is it real?

[mohc]

19. Who knows

But in a contest with 4047 delegates, is it worth the risk to fix an election to decide a single delegate? Fraud is still a concern, but the proportional allocation makes it much less likely there will be widespread fraud than a winner take all system does. Of course a popular vote system would be even better....