|
Comments:
lynne - 2004-10-08 12:34:24 Equal-opportunity hiring goes a bit too far when the blind are employed to proofread absentee ballots, as has apparently happened here. No disrespect meant to the blind. But.....really! We have some excellent proofreaders here at work. Maybe we could rent one out.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-08 13:11:42 They say that hemp grows really well and strong in the woods over there in Pentwater. Google the printer's phone number and you find among other things a five bedroom cottage to rent and sails for sale for your sailboat. Cancel the election. It's hopeless.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-08 13:14:44 Yes. It is hopeless. If nothing else, this mistake guarantees to introduce enough ambiguity that the absentee vote in our key swing state will be thrown into doubt. How ANYONE could be either so 1. stupid or 2. egregiously bold in ballot-tampering is just mind-boggling.* * * * * * * * * * * * Ames - 2004-10-08 13:14:45 I actually e-mailed the Sec'y of State on this one... Here's the reply: Greetings: This is in response to your recent email inquiry. The ballot printing error is confined to a single precinct in Michigan. A very limited number of absentee ballots containing the error were released before the error was spotted as explained below. On Monday, September 27, the clerk of the City of Alma received her ballots from her printer and filled her AV ballot requests. On Tuesday, a voter called the clerk to advise that she had spotted a printing error. The error: the arrows corresponding to the presidential candidates were shifted down one position. As a result, there is no arrow pointing to Bush/Cheney -- and there is an extra arrow hanging off the bottom of the list. (The extra arrow points to the heading for the U.S. House race). The error is confined to one precinct (Precinct #1) in the City of Alma. The clerk further advised that the ballot containing the error was sent to a total of 69 voters. After learning of the error, the clerk contacted the printer and the Bureau of Elections. Arrangements have been made to reissue replacement ballots to the 69 voters as soon as corrected ballots can be obtained. The printer has advised the clerk to expect delivery on Monday, October 4. Thank you for writing. Please do not hesitate to call this office if you have any questions. Best Regards, Michigan Department of State * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-08 13:22:29 Oh. Very informative reply--thank you Ames. I feel a bit better. Assuming the info is true. And that there aren't other little "mistakes" floating around. * * * * * * * * * * * * Jane Irwin - 2004-10-08 14:10:49 And the Freep Story.* * * * * * * * * * * * amy - 2004-10-08 14:41:27 not all absentee ballots are like that-- each precinct gets to decide what style of ballot to use (from a pre-determined list of possible ballot styles) in both their absentee and physical voting locations. mine, from delta township, MI, is a punch-card style ballot. no arrows to draw and no misprints (that i could determine, at least). * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-08 14:45:37 That's interesting...I didn't really realize that, although I've seen different ballots in different places. Strikes me as a very inefficient system, but an unavoidable one since each district has its own extra local proposals. Still, you'd think they could print a basic ballot with the national stuff and ship it to each district and let them add on the local stuff. * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-10-08 15:30:47 I have a question for them -- is the city clerk being fired for not even looking them over after getting them from the printer? What a serious error. (crabby, crabby, crabby).* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-08 15:32:27 In this case the balkanization* of the different districts' forms helped isolate the problem. *I've been waiting for months to ue this word. * * * * * * * * * * * * Murph - 2004-10-08 21:54:44 I don't mean to toot my own horn or anything (much), but check me out, blogging this 7 days before the Freep on ArborUpdate.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-08 22:15:16 Oops, you are right, Murph--you scooped this story; I overlooked that, sorry. Kudos to you. I learned about it from a posting on the migreens newsletter. For the record, you were first on this.* * * * * * * * * * * * Tuesday - 2004-10-09 11:49:00 Does the Freep seem more than just a little bitter about the blogging world? I was waiting for them to say, "Nah, nah, nah, you got it wrooong."* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-09 12:33:39 Yeah. Except that we didn't. There was a misprint, and no on knew at the time that it was just confined to Alma. The only reason it came out at all is due to bloggers pointing it out, followed by clarification. By the way, thanks for that good link, Jane. So, sorry, Mike. Your hindsight criticism of people who broke a story you didn't is misplaced.* * * * * * * * * * * * Murph - 2004-10-09 16:43:41 I'm fairly impressed that the Freep story seemed to spent more time talking about bloggers than about ballots--I'd kinda expect them to gloss over that part of the story.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-10 18:53:09 You're right--that's pretty ancillary, now that you mention it. The ballot error is key.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |