BBV - Tulare County - Spanish sample ballots say Nov 4th

[harmonyguy]

Sample ballots include wrong election date

By The Porterville Recorder staff

Spanish-language sample ballots for the upcoming general election include an incorrect date for the election.

The Tulare County Registrar of Voters reports that the Spanish-language sample ballots sent to Tulare County voters were printed with the date of the election identified as Nov. 4. The election is in fact scheduled Nov. 2.

http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2004/10/05/news/briefs/brief5.txt

[951]

1. Does anyone have a list of Spanish TV stations in that area?

We must get this out to them

[Andy_Stephenson]

2. I Tulare a Diebold county?

please please tell me yes.

[harmonyguy]

4. Ahh Yes Grasshopper, you remember well......

Accuvote Optical Scan....

From p205 of BBV....
“HarmonyGuy” suggested an explanation:“Thanks for pointing out the Tulare ballot — don’t know how theheck you found it, but it seems to answer the Palmieri/Kunzman issue ... those blasted BUTTERFLY-type ballots are back.”

[ParanoidPat]

5. Yes!

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/accuvote_os.htm :evilgrin:

California counties that use AccuVote OS:
Fresno, Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Placer, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, Trinity and Tulare

[lookaround]

3. Speaking of election managment

Managing an election is like any engineering project. You'd better have an exhaustive project calendar and you'd better have inspection and reinspection procedures in place. Otherwise, you will end up making STUPID mistakes that have the dire effect of disenfranchising folks. Except there's no way to know whether it's "just" a mistake, is there? This is why ALL election officials should have to submit to being elected, why they should be non-partisan (at least), and why heads should roll from time to time.

[claudiajean]

6. You are exactly right...all top election officals should be elected,

...however, I disagree that they should be non-partisan offices.

Labeling an office as non-partisan does not make the person holding the office apolitical or non-partisan. That person is still going to hold political views, and is likely to be a member of a political party (particularly in states with closed primaries and party registration).

And removing the non-partisan label, while seeming to be an improvement on the surface, actually takes away one of the few pieces of information by which a voter has to evaluate a candidate. It can make informed choices more difficult for voters on a crowded ballot. I like to see candidates be honest about their political views -- election supervisor is one office that I might be persuaded to vote for a straightforward moderate Republican with the right background to run the election office well.

What's more important than non-partisanship in the election supervisor position, is for the public to make good choices in their candidates and choose candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, who have demonstrated that they have the integrity to set aside political beliefs in the management of the election office.


Edited for clarity...

[claudiajean]

8. And I should have said "Welcome" as well...

...as you can tell by my low post count, I lurk more than I post.

But lurking is fun here, tooo!

:)

[harmonyguy]

7. Welcome to DU, lookaround...

A mixed bunch of folks from all over the world. In addition to many other topics here, there is frequent discussion of BBV-Black Box Voting. On that topic, there's everyone here from knowledgable activists, to outspoken foreigners(me), and we sometimes even have some fun yanking-the-chain of the voting equipment vendors' spooks who pretend they're just regular users. (They know who they are!)

All in all - a good bunch of folks, generally trying to do the right thing - bring integrity back to elections.

Again, welcome.
HG