You'd think it wouldn't be so damn difficult to design an easy way for people to vote in elections? This isn't brain surgery!

thefeldmanblog.com

Rules are rules.
Those votes should NOT be counted, they violated the rules of the party, those 100,000 votes should be tossed out.
Of course I am kidding, I salute Todd and the rest for making sure these 100,000 votes count.
I hope you help to make sure the 2 million Michigan & Florida votes are not tossed out, like they were in 2000.

Neither the DNC nor the Supreme Court has the right to decide an election.

The last time this phony story made the rounds here, Fort Courage was claiming that 94,500 ballots were uncounted in LA county. Now, it seems, that total universe of possible uncounted  ballots is down to 50,000.

From the linked article:

"Logan estimated about a quarter of the 190,000 ballots submitted by decline-to-state voters in Los Angeles County did not have both bubbles filled in. Those were among 1.8 million votes cast altogether in the county's Super Tuesday contest."

Let's stop right there. About 50,000 ballots did not have  both the bubbles filled in. With numerous State and local initiatives on the ballot, it is clearly the case that not ALL 50,000 ballots not marked in the double bubbles were from voters who intended to vote in a primary. These are non-party voters, and it defies common sense to claim that they all intended to vote in a party primary. So "50,000" is the absolute limit of possible "uncounted votes," and, in practice, the number must be much lower.

"Logan. . .said he can count ballots in precincts where there is no confusion between the two parties because independent voters asked exclusively for either Democratic or American Independent ballots."

OK, fine, these ballots are unambiguous.

"In addition, he can count ballots where a voter filled in a bubble that was reserved exclusively for a Democratic candidate. There were eight Democratic candidates and only three American Independent candidates."

Not so fine. This practice works to the disadvantage of the three Democratic candidates who were placed in the same ballot positions as the three American Independent party candidates. There is no way for them to recieve additional votes, even though some, if not most, of the ballots marked for their positions were probably intended for them, and not the AI party candidate.

This is the problem when local officials start caving in to special pleaders like the so-called "Courage Campaign." Why should the Elections officials have to bend over backwards for these non-party voters, to the point where it calls into question the fairness of the primary?

Notice too, the last sentence in the linked article:

"Independent voters were required to use the double bubble ballots because the parties wanted to keep track of how many independents voted in their primaries."

In other words, the "double bubble" was developed to satisfy the whims of the parties, which want non-party voters to be able to vote in their primaries, but also want to be able to "keep track" of their votes seperately from those of party members. For all of the hinting at nefarious practices by the local election officials, it is in fact the parties that are to blame for the "double bubble."

Well over a hundred thousand non-party voters were able to figure out how to fill out their ballots correctly in LA County. The Elections Board, the Obama camp, and the "Courage Campaign" all put out press releases prior to the primary instructing non-party voters what they needed to do. The few non-party voters who intended to vote in a primary, but either were too stupid or too indifferent to fill out their ballots correctly, do not deserve this type of special treatment.

Perhaps the real reason that the local officials have given in is hidden in the last paragraph of the post:

"This will no doubt result in a slight uptick in Barack Obama's California vote tally, although my friends at calitics tell me there's no way for it to impact the delegate count out of the state. But really, no matter who benefits, this is a huge win for the cause of counting every vote, a value all Democrats should share and a huge win for the power of thousands of names on a petition to make real world change."

In  fact, there is no "real world change" here. There is no significant change at all. A group of Beverly Hills liberals has managed, after much threatening, bullying, shouting, on-line petitioning, and the like, to have a few thousand meaningless, and improperly filled out ballots "counted." No change in the delegate count will come of it. The election officials are doing this simply to shut up this obdurate, Obama-front masquerading as a "good government" group. This is their "huge win." Big deal.

All I know is that the Registrar's office better get this ballot crap sorted out between now and the GE in November.

I'm always pleased any time efforts are made to make voting easier and to avoid disenfranchising especially those who take the time to cast a vote.

Any candidate that benefits from low turnout or by making the rules stricter doesn't deserve to win, in my opinion.  That usually means Republicans.  

But really, no matter who benefits, this is a huge win for the cause of counting every vote, a value all Democrats should share and a huge win for the power of thousands of names on a petition to make real world change.

Wouldn't counting the votes from Florida and Michigan be a similar victory for the cause of counting every vote?

Or are just "undercounted" Obama votes the ones that we should care about?

I'm confused.