(BCE appointed) Voting official seeks terrorism guidelines

[FORD]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

Friday, June 25, 2004 · Last updated 12:59 p.m. PT

Voting official seeks terrorism guidelines

By ERICA WERNER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

"I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion." Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City - and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said.

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said.

Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there.

"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."

[ELVIS]

I disagree with this...

[FORD]

Bottom line is that the 1864 and 1944 elections went off without any problems, and those were during actual wars with an enemy that wasn't a fictional construct of the Administration in office.

[knuckleboner]

there's some merit to the notion of exploring options.

an attack in NYC in the early morning of november 2nd will probably keep a lot of new yorkers away from the polls. is it fair to new york to say, "eh, sorry, but that's just bad luck?"

i don't know. but it's something they should at least consider.

[ELVIS]

an enemy that wasn't a fictional construct of the Administration in office.


I disagree with that too...

[Guitar Shark]

I wasn't warned.

[Satan]

Looks like I gotta pay overtime to my construction crews again. Damn you Bush! Damn you to Heaven!! :mad:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
there's some merit to the notion of exploring options.

an attack in NYC in the early morning of november 2nd will probably keep a lot of new yorkers away from the polls. is it fair to new york to say, "eh, sorry, but that's just bad luck?"

i don't know. but it's something they should at least consider.

Exactly. Consider the blackout last year that disabled the Northeast. What if that happens on election day? In liberal NY, Mass, New England, etc..... OK .....fine by me. :gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Exactly. Consider the blackout last year that disabled the Northeast. What if that happens on election day?

Considering how many friends the BCE have in the energy industry, it wouldn't surprise me. Another reason why voting should only take place with paper ballots.

[wraytw]

Originally posted by FORD
Considering how many friends the BCE have in the energy industry, it wouldn't surprise me. Another reason why voting should only take place with paper ballots.

:rolleyes:

[Ally_Kat]

wait...what is so wrong about this? We're not cancelling the elections because there's a threat for a possible attack; We're having a procedure on what to do on an election day in case there was an attack.

9/11 was a nyc primary and let me tell you, it was a bitch to be an employee of the Board of Elections that day. We didn't know if we should have the polls closed, if we should let anyone who would come in vote, if the votes should count, or what. Nothing like this had ever happened before. All we knew was that we were under attack and the place hit was one of our largest polling sites.

The nation needs a plan. What if one state is hit during a nationwide election. Do we cancel/reshedule the election only in then general vicinity of the area hit, the entire state, or the nation? I think we should get somesort of plan. Having one would sure in the hell have helped us back then.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
wait...what is so wrong about this? We're not cancelling the elections because there's a threat for a possible attack; We're having a procedure on what to do on an election day in case there was an attack.

9/11 was a nyc primary and let me tell you, it was a bitch to be an employee of the Board of Elections that day. We didn't know if we should have the polls closed, if we should let anyone who would come in vote, if the votes should count, or what. Nothing like this had ever happened before. All we knew was that we were under attack and the place hit was one of our largest polling sites.

The nation needs a plan. What if one state is hit during a nationwide election. Do we cancel/reshedule the election only in then general vicinity of the area hit, the entire state, or the nation? I think we should get somesort of plan. Having one would sure in the hell have helped us back then.


I know. Hire Kathleen Harris and Jeb Bush to handle it. THAT would make it fair, wouldn't it?:mad: :confused: :cool:

[Ally_Kat]

Keeyth, why do you oppose this?

[Viking]

Given the fact that the methods of warfare have changed substantially in the past several decades, combined with the fact that there are already a dozen Congressional subversives (who should be impeached post haste) crying out for United Nations monitoring of the election (which is not only illegal on many levels, but I will state here and now that I will personally gun down any Blue Helmet pissant I come across), I think it's a crackin' good idea to have contingency plans in place in case the unspeakable happens.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Keeyth, why do you oppose this?

Well for starters...

"Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect."

What a load of bullshit. Not to intimidate? You mean PRECISELY to intimidate!!
That is exactly what they did in the 2000 election to keep Blacks from voting in Florida. They had 3 to 4 cops sit outside every polling location to hassle every black person who walked up to vote. REAL security huh?
Look up Database Technologies, and their relation to Kathleen Harris and the Bush Campaign. THAT is how they truly stole the election. If anyone even had the same NAME or Birth date as a known felon, they were denied the right to vote. Simple as that. They even denied one of the poll managers her right to vote because her name was the same as a felon on their list. DT even admitted that their "..stroke would be broad, and many eligible voters may be turned away, but that it is better to be safe than sorry. Fucking disgusting. And you wonder why I hate Bush...

Our voting process has been reduced to a farce anyway... ...and if Bush wins again, that is all the proof you need of that fact.

[Ally_Kat]

Cops are always assigned to polling places and it not uncommon to find 3 or more in a group at one polling place at a time. I believe what he's talking about in increasing security is that those cops who work election day shifts -- if you notice, their uniforms are always a lil too tight for them and they are always tired. Normally they are guys who just came off a shift and/or detectives looking to make a lil side money. The most I've had in a polling place at one time was 4 cops and 3 of them fell asleep while the one read a newspaper. That's not really secure.

Felons are not allowed to vote and we do take out names in the area of caution. Name and birthday have to match. In the case of being mistaken as a felon, you can go to your board of elections office and see the judge that is in house for election day. You state your case and if you can prove you are not that felon (usually by SS#'s that are not put into books the pollworkers get), you get a court order and you can go back and vote.


And because of one part you are saying you completely disapprove of coming up with a plan in case something should happen? We desperately need an election emergency plan and I don't care which side comes up with it. It doesn't take a mad scientist to come up with this. You just need to decide what to do in different levels of severity, such as closing off just a few EDs to a bunch of ADs, to closing the state of a few states, or post-poning nationwide. And then should you lock and tally or wipe the slate clean for whenever the elections are rescheduled. How long should the resheduled day be from the original day. What to do with affidavit ballots and when, if necessary, to extend their deadline to. Just these little things that I'm sure voters don't think of. Then there's closing the polling site and securing rhe election documents. I don't give a shit who comes up with it, Republican, Democrat, whatever, as long as they understand all the little guidelines and come up with something that is clear cut and can be applied easily in case of emergency.

Trust me, we freaked without a plan. It was a complete mess. We were missing documents form this place and that place, voter books went missing, you name it. And this was just Queens. I'm not even going into Manhattan.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Cops are always assigned to polling places and it not uncommon to find 3 or more in a group at one polling place at a time. I believe what he's talking about in increasing security is that those cops who work election day shifts -- if you notice, their uniforms are always a lil too tight for them and they are always tired. Normally they are guys who just came off a shift and/or detectives looking to make a lil side money. The most I've had in a polling place at one time was 4 cops and 3 of them fell asleep while the one read a newspaper. That's not really secure.

Felons are not allowed to vote and we do take out names in the area of caution. Name and birthday have to match. In the case of being mistaken as a felon, you can go to your board of elections office and see the judge that is in house for election day. You state your case and if you can prove you are not that felon (usually by SS#'s that are not put into books the pollworkers get), you get a court order and you can go back and vote.


Oh nice. Yeah, that may be how it's SUPPOSED to work, but that is not how it worked at all. You want it in a nutshell? Go to the great website
www.toostupidtobepresident.com and click on the Grinch parody "How the Bush stole the election" if you really want it all spelled out for you. Since it seems (based on your opinions about Bush) that you can't seem to pay attention while reseaching your 'facts' about the Bush campaign and their exploits, maybe it will help to see this factual yet entertaining little expose about it. There are many other interesting little tidbits there, but that one is probably the most well-done...

I highly recommend it.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Oh nice. Yeah, that may be how it's SUPPOSED to work, but that is not how it worked at all. You want it in a nutshell? Go to the great website
www.toostupidtobepresident.com and click on the Grinch parody "How the Bush stole the election" if you really want it all spelled out for you. Since it seems (based on your opinions about Bush) that you can't seem to pay attention while reseaching your 'facts' about the Bush campaign and their exploits, maybe it will help to see this factual yet entertaining little expose about it. There are many other interesting little tidbits there, but that one is probably the most well-done...

I highly recommend it.

Dude, stop being a political ass and trying to make me look like some retarded conservative for a second. I'm not paying attention while I'm researching facts? Keeyth, stop for a second and listen to me --

I work for the fucking Board of Elections.

You know, the people that do the voting thingies in november? I've been working there since I'm 14. And I've gotten to the point where all the pollworkers know me even though I'm not teaching their classes we make them take so that they can work anymore. I walk into any polling place in Queens and they're all smiles talking about what went on and how they solved problems that day.

I think I know a little about election law and election procedure. I was telling you what we do with the felons in the voting system and what can be done if your name is taking off. I told you what is common-place with the cops and how easy is it to break a law in front of them. I had union leaders going in with voters one year RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE COPS! I almost had a heartattack.

I was not saying anything about what Bush did or did not do on election day 2000. Tell me where in my post I was talking about that. Do you read every political post by known conservatives with the assumption that we're telling you you're wrong andthat we're sucking Bush's cock?

And then I went into the basic stuff that this plan is going to help us, the people who make the elections work, with when there is an emergency so that we can carry out the election successfully. Trust me, if there's something retarded and completely unuseful, even possibly quite hindering, I'll be the first one to say WTF and explain/go on a rant on how do they think that'll help and explain the situations around it.


Jesus Christ. I don't research stuff about the voting process, I live it.

:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Dude, stop being a political ass and trying to make me look like some retarded conservative for a second. I'm not paying attention while I'm researching facts? Keeyth, stop for a second and listen to me --

I work for the fucking Board of Elections.

You know, the people that do the voting thingies in november? I've been working there since I'm 14. And I've gotten to the point where all the pollworkers know me even though I'm not teaching their classes we make them take so that they can work anymore. I walk into any polling place in Queens and they're all smiles talking about what went on and how they solved problems that day.

I think I know a little about election law and election procedure. I was telling you what we do with the felons in the voting system and what can be done if your name is taking off. I told you what is common-place with the cops and how easy is it to break a law in front of them. I had union leaders going in with voters one year RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE COPS! I almost had a heartattack.

I was not saying anything about what Bush did or did not do on election day 2000. Tell me where in my post I was talking about that. Do you read every political post by known conservatives with the assumption that we're telling you you're wrong andthat we're sucking Bush's cock?

And then I went into the basic stuff that this plan is going to help us, the people who make the elections work, with when there is an emergency so that we can carry out the election successfully. Trust me, if there's something retarded and completely unuseful, even possibly quite hindering, I'll be the first one to say WTF and explain/go on a rant on how do they think that'll help and explain the situations around it.


Jesus Christ. I don't research stuff about the voting process, I live it.

:rolleyes:


Two things:

1.) How much research have you done into what happened in Florida in 2000, and what do you think about THAT voting process???

and

2.) Would it surprize you to learn that my wife works for the Repulican National Convention, (bet that one threw ya!) :D
and that I know a lot about how the voting process is circumvented???

or are you saying that is not possible because you're on the job??

[Ally_Kat]

1) Trust me when I say the state boards have been lectured time and time again each election. Saying it was a mess would be an understatement

2) Tell me why if you knew I was posting about the standard procedure why you insulted me that I was researching and doing a crappy job at that, too.


What is she working at the Convention as? I'll see her there.

[diamondD]

I think that after reading FORD's comments on a daily basis every day since that election, most of us are well versed on the conspiracy theories that makes liberals feel better about losing the election.

But after proving every one of them wrong over and over, most of us are just ready for the 2004 election discussions and can't wait to hear the new tin foil beanie explanations this November. :)

[FORD]

Florida wasn't conspiracy theory. It was proven conspiracy fact. The only part still unproven is exactly how thousands of unsigned ballots showed up from overseas only days after Bush Sr left the country. And there a conspiracy isn't even neccessary. The ballots did not meet the legal standards.

[diamondD]

Apparantly, the people who actually know the law, disagree with you. I've said it over and over, if Gore had a legal standing, he would have kept trying. He gave up because he knew he didn't have a chance. The only outrage is from the far left, and it would have been the far right if it was reversed. But for the centrists, it's old news and to be still whining about it in every post just shows that some people can't move on because there's nothing to look forward to. It's all they have. ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Apparantly, the people who actually know the law, disagree with you.

You mean the Felonious Florida Five judges, all of whom were appointed by the BCE? Yeah, of course they never had any alterior motive :rolleyes:


I've said it over and over, if Gore had a legal standing, he would have kept trying. He gave up because he knew he didn't have a chance.

It's a little difficult to appeal the Supreme Court. Which is why this kind of corruption is especially disgusting.


The only outrage is from the far left, and it would have been the far right if it was reversed.

The staged scene in Miami certainly proved that.


But for the centrists, it's old news and to be still whining about it in every post just shows that some people can't move on because there's nothing to look forward to. It's all they have. ;)

Some of these so called "centrists" are neocon moles who are trying to destroy the Democratic party from within. These are the idiots responsibile for the complete lack of spine shown by Congressional Democrats from the Florida coup right up until the primary season when they realized people were listening to Howard Dean.

But of course, he was too threatening to their appeasement agenda, so they couldn't have that. And the rest is sad sickening fucking history :(

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Well for starters...

"Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect."

What a load of bullshit. Not to intimidate? You mean PRECISELY to intimidate!!
That is exactly what they did in the 2000 election to keep Blacks from voting in Florida. They had 3 to 4 cops sit outside every polling location to hassle every black person who walked up to vote. REAL security huh?
Look up Database Technologies, and their relation to Kathleen Harris and the Bush Campaign. THAT is how they truly stole the election. If anyone even had the same NAME or Birth date as a known felon, they were denied the right to vote. Simple as that.

You've believed the same old stories all the other liberal weinies have iterated in the past. They are all rather old and dated and without absolutely any PROOF. Get some actual FACTS. :gulp:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You've believed the same old stories all the other liberal weinies have iterated in the past. They are all rather old and dated and without absolutely any PROOF. Get some actual FACTS. :gulp:

See FORD's post two spaces up.... ...and have another drink.. ...on me.:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
1) Trust me when I say the state boards have been lectured time and time again each election. Saying it was a mess would be an understatement

2) Tell me why if you knew I was posting about the standard procedure why you insulted me that I was researching and doing a crappy job at that, too.


What is she working at the Convention as? I'll see her there.

O.K., I apologize. I didn't mean to insult you. It's just an assumption I made based upon your opinion which is different than mine, and that is wrong of me.

As for the wife, (as it would be with you I believe, if we had an actual sit down chat and I could go into the facts in documented detail) I have shown her the error of her ways in supporting the Bush Republican party, and she is no longer supporting him, due to her convictions based upon the evidence that his is more of a criminal syndicate rather than a political party.

On a lighter note, I found out this year that I am actually still a registered Republican from back in the Reagan era, though I have not been voting that way, and I plan on remedying that this year. But that again just shows more of the innaccuracy in some of the voting and registering processes in my opinion.

[Ally_Kat]

This


Originally posted by Keeyth

2.) Would it surprize you to learn that my wife works for the Repulican National Convention, (bet that one threw ya!) :D
and that I know a lot about how the voting process is circumvented???

or are you saying that is not possible because you're on the job??


and then this



Originally posted by Keeyth
On a lighter note, I found out this year that I am actually still a registered Republican from back in the Reagan era, though I have not been voting that way, and I plan on remedying that this year. But that again just shows more of the innaccuracy in some of the voting and registering processes in my opinion.

don't add up. Surely if you knew how the voting process works, you could re-read and see why. For those that don't, and because I'm bored, I'll type...

How does still being registered a Republican even though you haven't been voting Republican show inaccuracy in the voting and voter registration process? You pick what party you want to be affiliated with when you register. You don't need to be affiliated with a certain party to vote for that party. The only time party comes into play with elections is when there's a primary and it isn't an open on. (that's what we call primaries where either party can vote in it, even if the parties don't match. I don't know what non-board people call it seeing how NYC deals only with closed. Just wanted to clarifiy in case some of you didn't know wtf I was talking about)

Thus, pumpkin pie, if you registered as a Republican and then started voting, we'll say Democrat, it wouldn't make a change in your registration at all. The Board of Elections does not keep a tally of what political party you vote for and we do not change your political affiliation due to what party you continually vote for. If you wish to change your political party, it is up to you to re-fill out a registration card and mark one of the lil boxes that are marked change of address, name change, or political party change.

Law differs by state, but it usually goes that any changes for political affiliation only goes into effect AFTER the November election. This is to help prevent people from switching parties to go vote in closed primaries and then switch back.

Now, reguardless that some (if not all -- it's been a while for me and Cali elections, plus technological advances happen fast) Cali counties use computer voting, you still need to sign the voter roll book. That book has your general election information in it, which includes your party affiliation. From your personality, I find it hard to swallow that you don't glance over your general info before you sign it. If you did, you would have noticed that you were still registered as a Republican.

Now, if you had made the change beforehand, which I am led to not believe since you didn't mention it in your post, then a simple call to the board asking, "what's the hold up" should do. Altho, they might ask you to fill out another card. If Cali does voter id cards (some states are changing this, like NY. My generation of voters didn't get one) you should get that in the mail about 3 weeks afterwards with your new political affiliation on it.

Therefore, it shows nothing about inaccuracy in the voting and voter registration process because you are still registered republican and have been voting otherwise.

[Big Train]

Diamond D, I agree one thousand percent. From some of the comments I have read here, "to initmidate minority voters", "bushs friends at the energy co. I wouldn't be suprised", sounds to me more like lack of faith in Mr. Kerry's ability to win this election. As I have read in other threads, it's not cause he is the best, but that he is electable. Basketball season isn't to far off, got to pratice that backpedaling.....

"Busheep" OUT!!!

[Ally_Kat]

bump cuz pumpkin pie is back and hasn't seen this yet

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
This




and then this




don't add up. Surely if you knew how the voting process works, you could re-read and see why. For those that don't, and because I'm bored, I'll type...

How does still being registered a Republican even though you haven't been voting Republican show inaccuracy in the voting and voter registration process? You pick what party you want to be affiliated with when you register. You don't need to be affiliated with a certain party to vote for that party. The only time party comes into play with elections is when there's a primary and it isn't an open on. (that's what we call primaries where either party can vote in it, even if the parties don't match. I don't know what non-board people call it seeing how NYC deals only with closed. Just wanted to clarifiy in case some of you didn't know wtf I was talking about)

Thus, pumpkin pie, if you registered as a Republican and then started voting, we'll say Democrat, it wouldn't make a change in your registration at all. The Board of Elections does not keep a tally of what political party you vote for and we do not change your political affiliation due to what party you continually vote for. If you wish to change your political party, it is up to you to re-fill out a registration card and mark one of the lil boxes that are marked change of address, name change, or political party change.

Law differs by state, but it usually goes that any changes for political affiliation only goes into effect AFTER the November election. This is to help prevent people from switching parties to go vote in closed primaries and then switch back.

Now, reguardless that some (if not all -- it's been a while for me and Cali elections, plus technological advances happen fast) Cali counties use computer voting, you still need to sign the voter roll book. That book has your general election information in it, which includes your party affiliation. From your personality, I find it hard to swallow that you don't glance over your general info before you sign it. If you did, you would have noticed that you were still registered as a Republican.

Now, if you had made the change beforehand, which I am led to not believe since you didn't mention it in your post, then a simple call to the board asking, "what's the hold up" should do. Altho, they might ask you to fill out another card. If Cali does voter id cards (some states are changing this, like NY. My generation of voters didn't get one) you should get that in the mail about 3 weeks afterwards with your new political affiliation on it.

Therefore, it shows nothing about inaccuracy in the voting and voter registration process because you are still registered republican and have been voting otherwise.

Some valid points. However, maybe they SHOULD change your registered status based upon how you vote. That's part of why you're registered, right? So they can take polls and figure out how many of what voter are in each area? My point is that their polls can't be all that accurate, as I have been registered one way and voting the other for years, and it's unlikely I'm the only one...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
bump cuz pumpkin pie is back and hasn't seen this yet

Awww.. ..have you come up with a nick name for me? How sweet!:D ;)

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Some valid points. However, maybe they SHOULD change your registered status based upon how you vote. That's part of why you're registered, right? So they can take polls and figure out how many of what voter are in each area? My point is that their polls can't be all that accurate, as I have been registered one way and voting the other for years, and it's unlikely I'm the only one...

That's kinda illegal because they would have to keep a record of how you vote each election. Not only is it illegal, it's impossible to implement that. And what if you vote for a different party one year because you like that canidate and then go to vote in your party's primaries the next year? You can't if your state has closed primaries because now you'll be enlisted in the other party you voted for and not your original party; And you'll have to wait until after the next November election before you can change it back.

And what about those people who do not wish to be in a party. Your suggestion would have them joining any party a canidate they vote for is included in.

And what about those who join a smaller third party who doesn't regularly have a canidate of their own and list a major party's canidate in their slot? Are they now that small third party or are they a part of the major party whose canidate the smaller third party supported?

And what polls are you talking about? In all my years with the board, we never conducted one poll. Polls are more for the parties and the media to conduct. You are allowed to go into your board of elections and ask to look information up. You can also call up and ask info. If you work for a newspaper and want to do some story/study based on the number of Republican, Democrat, Independent and smaller third party voters and where they live, you can come down, sign the vistor's log, and then some poor employee will be assigned to sit and watch you as you look up your info on the system we have designed for that.

The only polls the Board of Elections is involved in are the polling sites on election day.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
That's kinda illegal because they would have to keep a record of how you vote each election. Not only is it illegal, it's impossible to implement that. And what if you vote for a different party one year because you like that canidate and then go to vote in your party's primaries the next year? You can't if your state has closed primaries because now you'll be enlisted in the other party you voted for and not your original party; And you'll have to wait until after the next November election before you can change it back.

So, if you vote one way one year, you can't vote the other the next? That doesn't make sense to me since I've been voting one way and been registered the other for years...

And what about those people who do not wish to be in a party. Your suggestion would have them joining any party a canidate they vote for is included in.

And what about those who join a smaller third party who doesn't regularly have a canidate of their own and list a major party's canidate in their slot? Are they now that small third party or are they a part of the major party whose canidate the smaller third party supported?

And what polls are you talking about? In all my years with the board, we never conducted one poll. Polls are more for the parties and the media to conduct. You are allowed to go into your board of elections and ask to look information up. You can also call up and ask info. If you work for a newspaper and want to do some story/study based on the number of Republican, Democrat, Independent and smaller third party voters and where they live, you can come down, sign the vistor's log, and then some poor employee will be assigned to sit and watch you as you look up your info on the system we have designed for that.

O.K., but as I stated, those polls must have a huge margin of error...

The only polls the Board of Elections is involved in are the polling sites on election day.

[Ally_Kat]

Maybe they do, but it's not the Board of Elections doing those polls. And besides, the first thing about polls is not to rely on them because unless you survey every person, it's inaccurant.



So, if you vote one way one year, you can't vote the other the next? That doesn't make sense to me since I've been voting one way and been registered the other for years...


what are you talking about? It's not clear. What I said was that if one is a registered Republican and then votes for a Democrat, under your system that person would automatically become a Democrat. If that person went to vote in a closed Republican primary, because that is their party they registered in originally, he/she would be turned away seeing how now that person is a Democrat.

People would change parties all the time and it would be difficult for a person to personally keep track of which party they are involved with.

And even if a Republican votes for a Democrat one year, what's saying they will vote for Democrats each election after that? The next year they may like the Republican canidate or a third-party canidate.

And which election is this going to affect? What if I'm someone who likes the Republican canidate for every other elction, but for a local election, I prefer what the Democrat canidate offers? Am I a Democrat because I voted for one canidate?

And then, because there's more, there's never just one thing you are voting for. What if on one voting session, you vote one party for this, this and this, and then another party for another section of the ticket? Or if when you go to vote judges, you end up splitting that one between parties. What party ar you in now? You voted for multiple. Do we go with which ever you voted more for? Is that an effective way of placing someone in a party? What should we tell people who don't want ot be placed into another party based on liking one canidate outside their party within a single race -- not to vote?

Your system doesn't make sense and would be difficult to nearly impossible to enforce.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Maybe they do, but it's not the Board of Elections doing those polls. And besides, the first thing about polls is not to rely on them because unless you survey every person, it's inaccurant.




what are you talking about? It's not clear. What I said was that if one is a registered Republican and then votes for a Democrat, under your system that person would automatically become a Democrat. If that person went to vote in a closed Republican primary, because that is their party they registered in originally, he/she would be turned away seeing how now that person is a Democrat.

People would change parties all the time and it would be difficult for a person to personally keep track of which party they are involved with.

And even if a Republican votes for a Democrat one year, what's saying they will vote for Democrats each election after that? The next year they may like the Republican canidate or a third-party canidate.

And which election is this going to affect? What if I'm someone who likes the Republican canidate for every other elction, but for a local election, I prefer what the Democrat canidate offers? Am I a Democrat because I voted for one canidate?

And then, because there's more, there's never just one thing you are voting for. What if on one voting session, you vote one party for this, this and this, and then another party for another section of the ticket? Or if when you go to vote judges, you end up splitting that one between parties. What party ar you in now? You voted for multiple. Do we go with which ever you voted more for? Is that an effective way of placing someone in a party? What should we tell people who don't want ot be placed into another party based on liking one canidate outside their party within a single race -- not to vote?

Your system doesn't make sense and would be difficult to nearly impossible to enforce.

I wasn't aware that I was trying to create a system. I'm just saying that , yeah, if you vote for one party, then you should be affiliated with that party, and no you would not be left out of any primaries, because as soon as you expressed an interest in voting for another party you would belong to that party. I actually don't think most people even care about which party they are affiliated with. They simply vote their conscience based upon the candidate. At least I don't worry about the party crap. We're not all as heavily invested in that much detail about the whole thing as you are babe.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I wasn't aware that I was trying to create a system. I'm just saying that , yeah, if you vote for one party, then you should be affiliated with that party, and no you would not be left out of any primaries, because as soon as you expressed an interest in voting for another party you would belong to that party. I actually don't think most people even care about which party they are affiliated with. They simply vote their conscience based upon the candidate. At least I don't worry about the party crap. We're not all as heavily invested in that much detail about the whole thing as you are babe.

In order to do what you want, we would need to create a system. It's impossible for all the reasons I've stated. Is it really that hard to go and fill out another card if you wish to change parties? Why must we babysit voters? People 18 and over should be able to take care of themselves.

And no, you won't be left out of a primary completely, but if you registered as a Republican and voted for a Democrat, and now are listed as a Democrat because in one election you liked the Democratic canidate better, you are left out of the party you may have more interest/agreement with and/or want ot be affiliated with.

According to your agruement of when you start expressing an interest of voting for a canidatein another party, New York would be a Republican state and not a Democratic state. We've had a Republican governor and mayor since I was in elementary school.

And if people don't really care about the party they are in, why do so many people turn out for primaries? I should be able to snooze thru that day if no one cares.

I know the details to debunk your automatic swtiching party idea because it's part of my job and what I've been trained in. While your average voter on the street may not be able to think of why it won't work, you can bet your ass that they will start a fight if they know they registeres with one party and then they are told they cannot vote in that party's primary because it's a clsoed primary and they belong to the other party.

Oh! and I completely forgot this part. Before elections happen, there's petitions to get on the ballot. Only members of a political party can sign a petition for that party. With your system, petion time will be so f'in crazy at the office because people will sign the wrong party's petition. We'll end up sitting all day in court and not workign towards the election cuz of it. Then, depending on how many signatures are thrown out due to that kaos, canidates could be denied to go on the ballot.

Basically, you're asking for a mess bigger than Florida.

It can't work and it'll never work

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
In order to do what you want, we would need to create a system. It's impossible for all the reasons I've stated. Is it really that hard to go and fill out another card if you wish to change parties? Why must we babysit voters? People 18 and over should be able to take care of themselves.

And no, you won't be left out of a primary completely, but if you registered as a Republican and voted for a Democrat, and now are listed as a Democrat because in one election you liked the Democratic canidate better, you are left out of the party you may have more interest/agreement with and/or want ot be affiliated with.

According to your agruement of when you start expressing an interest of voting for a canidatein another party, New York would be a Republican state and not a Democratic state. We've had a Republican governor and mayor since I was in elementary school.

And if people don't really care about the party they are in, why do so many people turn out for primaries? I should be able to snooze thru that day if no one cares.

I know the details to debunk your automatic swtiching party idea because it's part of my job and what I've been trained in. While your average voter on the street may not be able to think of why it won't work, you can bet your ass that they will start a fight if they know they registeres with one party and then they are told they cannot vote in that party's primary because it's a clsoed primary and they belong to the other party.

Oh! and I completely forgot this part. Before elections happen, there's petitions to get on the ballot. Only members of a political party can sign a petition for that party. With your system, petion time will be so f'in crazy at the office because people will sign the wrong party's petition. We'll end up sitting all day in court and not workign towards the election cuz of it. Then, depending on how many signatures are thrown out due to that kaos, canidates could be denied to go on the ballot.

Basically, you're asking for a mess bigger than Florida.

It can't work and it'll never work

don't vote for a party you don't want to be affiliated with, and also, in a free country, why should we have closed primaries? Why 'close' anything? It's a free country and we should be able to vote and be affiliated with whoever we want to be anytime we want to be.

[Keeyth]

P.S. It was YOUR system we have now that created the Florida mess, not mine...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
don't vote for a party you don't want to be affiliated with, and also, in a free country, why should we have closed primaries? Why 'close' anything? It's a free country and we should be able to vote and be affiliated with whoever we want to be anytime we want to be.

so you are supporting voting down a party line because you support the party's ideals?

What if you don't agree with a canidate that is running that year for that party? Don't vote at all because you don't generally agree with the other parties?

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
P.S. It was YOUR system we have now that created the Florida mess, not mine...

I didn't create the system. I studied it and know the minor details of it. It's the system I work with.

And when I work for the Florida Board of Elections is when you can try to tie me to blame with that :)

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
so you are supporting voting down a party line because you support the party's ideals?

What if you don't agree with a canidate that is running that year for that party? Don't vote at all because you don't generally agree with the other parties?

It seems to me a party's ideals change or at least alter, with the flavor of the month candidate...

...and I say always vote your heart, for the candidate the you deem best for the future of the country/state/ or whatever you are voting for.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I didn't create the system. I studied it and know the minor details of it. It's the system I work with.

And when I work for the Florida Board of Elections is when you can try to tie me to blame with that :)

So you are admitting there was some tampering going on? What IS your take on what happened in Florida exactly??

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
So you are admitting there was some tampering going on? What IS your take on what happened in Florida exactly??

I already answered this and no, i'm not admitting anything. You're take is that thre is blame for that and that's the basis of my answer

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
It seems to me a party's ideals change or at least alter, with the flavor of the month candidate...

what seems to you is not clear to use that work with them all the time


...and I say always vote your heart, for the candidate the you deem best for the future of the country/state/ or whatever you are voting for.

Then why bother with the changing of one's political party with whoever they vote for? That's not what you were leaning towards in your suggestions a couple of posts ago.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I already answered this and no, i'm not admitting anything. You're take is that thre is blame for that and that's the basis of my answer

I asked what YOUR take was then...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
what seems to you is not clear to use that work with them all the time


Uh.... ....what?


Then why bother with the changing of one's political party with whoever they vote for? That's not what you were leaning towards in your suggestions a couple of posts ago.

I think it was... ...maybe you just misunderstood me... ...I'm very misunderstood you know!:D

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I asked what YOUR take was then...

And I answered that question already

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I think it was... ...maybe you just misunderstood me... ...I'm very misunderstood you know!:D

oh, I hit the e key on my way to the t key. Sue me.

And no, go and read. You were saying we should change parties due to who we vote for and that we shouldn't vote for a canidate in a party we don't agree with. Not everyone is hard right or left and there are some canidates that are closer to the middle that are appealing ot members in the other party. Maybe the people who find those canidates aren't interested in the party as a whole, but like that canidate. You were saying that the voter shouldn't vote for them because they are involved with a party the voter doesnt agree with, thus leaving a party line option or a no voting option, unless the voter desires to be associated with the other party until they vote for another canidate in their original party.

[Seshmeister]

Ally helped steal the election for Bush...?:o

[Sgt Schultz]

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election
Jul 13, 9:34 AM (ET)
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter Monday to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter.

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.

Soaries also expressed concern in the earlier letter that increased Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He raised that issue again in his letter to lawmakers.

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the Election Assistance Commission.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election
Jul 13, 9:34 AM (ET)
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections.

"There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter Monday to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter.

Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections.

"We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration," Rice told CNN on Monday.

Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election.

Soaries also expressed concern in the earlier letter that increased Election Day security could intimidate some voters, highlighting the need for communication between security officials and election administrators. He raised that issue again in his letter to lawmakers.

Soaries said Monday he was scheduled to meet early next week with Homeland Security officials to discuss the issues.

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 created the Election Assistance Commission.

The way I see it, the only way for Bush to stay in office any longer WOULD be to delay the election. No wonder he wants this idea to go thru!!:D