Caging rips off over 100,000 votes in California

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Hundreds of thousands of independent voters who tried to vote in the open Democratic primary in California had their ballots thrown away. Poll workers in many locations forgot [or "forgot"] to tell them to fill in the bubble at the top of the ballot asking for their party. If they left it blank, it was thrown away. If they selected Decline-to-State [independent], the ballot was thrown away. The instructions were unclear for the three million independent voters of California who attempted to vote in the California primary. Many others found out they weren't registered when they arrived to vote.

Karl Rove Tactics in Los Angeles. Ohio 2004 Redux
Super Tuesday, 2008

Today, Super Tuesday, a disturbing number of Los Angeles voters were denied a proper ballot. Why? Because some time in the recent past, they received what appeared to be a piece of junk mail and they threw it away. Oops. It was a notification for them to re-register. Why did they receive it? Who knows. But today, they had to vote on a provisional ballot. That ballot will most likely not be counted. Certainly it will not be included in the first count, the count that gets released to the public and the media - the count that decides the winner.

That's called caging. It's a Karl Rove tactic that succeeded in Ohio in 2004, and succeeded in Florida in 2000. Karl had a direct mail business in Texas, you see. He not only knows how to do this, he will do it. I personally do not believe that Karl resigned his position in the Bush Administration to spend time cuddled in the hammock with the wife. He's out there, consulting and conniving and coming up with new ways to steal 2008.

Here's another triumph for Karl. Today I'm manning the phones for the LA Election Protection Task Force, getting calls from Poll Monitors who are observing huge mistakes made by poll workers - a lot of high school kids and elderly - overwhelmed and confused by the many duties of the job. Some poll workers are unhelpful and don't care to do what's correct and legal. None of them, even the most capable, and good hearted, can compensate for inadequate training from the County.

For example: You might have heard this report on local LA radio. Non-partisan voters are supposed to tick off a little "dem box" at the top of their ballot, if they want to vote for a Democratic candidate. Otherwise, their vote is not counted. Were these voters alerted to this by the poll workers? Not really. Was this pointed out in their "official" pollworker training? Not really. We hear roars of outrage and frustration and tears as voters (and the Obama campaign) realize their votes are for nothing.

Just one more, although I could go on and on. Many precincts were shifted around L.A. County. My precinct was split; half to another garage three streets away, half to the church up the hill. Were George and Heidi, my original polling place hosts, told where to direct the displaced voters? No. All over this county, voters wandered into the wrong polling place, and had to vote provisionally. (That's IF they could find the wrong polling place. Signage was often terrible.) Hey y'all, does this have a sickeningly familiar ring to it? How about "disenfranchisement in heavily Democratic precincts" as in, "Los Angeles Democrats make up 40% of the California Democratic party vote."

"Oh my God,!" I wailed after 2004, after going to Ohio and experiencing the ruins of a stolen election. "How can they DO this to people?" I was on the phone with my sister, whose husband has been an exec for GE and Tyco. Her response had a "Well, duh!" ring to it. "Because they want to win. " Oh. Ah. So. I wonder.

Do WE? Are we willing to give two days out of 365 this year to work the vote - at the polls or monitoring the vote? By two days, I mean, sign up and work in June, get the experience, get ready for November. Two days. Will YOU give a shift?

Today's planned chaos indicates that if we truly want to win in November, we are going to have to split our time between working for our dream candidate and working to protect the vote. A sign over our kitchen sink when I was growing up in Ohio: "If YOU don't do it, it WON'T get done."

Come on. Get involved. Unless you WANT Karl Rove to win. (Again.)

Onward to a true democracy,
Sheri Myers. Work the Vote LA
Details at Courage Campaign and BradBlog

Mimi Kennedy, Actor, Poll Inspector, Explains the LA Snafu

< Is Ron Paul a Victim of His Own Success? | Barakula the Musical? >
 Display:
I was thinking the same thing last night listening to Ben Mankiewicz complaining about poll workers. 

"If YOU don't do it, it WON'T get done." Give a shift.

by toosinbeymen on 02/06/2008 12:58:47 PM EST


this might be a good time for Americans to stop claiming that they are "the greatest democracy on earth"

it just isn't true, when you cannot even hold elections correctly and the election fraud in the US is no small thing, it's massive and widespread

do you really think elections in Canada, EU, Japan, ... suffer from this widescale corruption? No, they don't. A big part of the rest of the world have had more fair elections these last 5 years.

So everytime Americans claim this, big parts of the world look at them: arrogant, ignorant, dumb Americans.

So, be real patriots and fix this problem or at least stop claiming this, because in the eyes of other Westerners you just look idiotic.

by callisto on 02/06/2008 01:38:10 PM EST


Cenk and Ben where talking about this . The poll workers never told Cenk anything about it either.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/06/2008 01:39:15 PM EST


I am a registered Independent. When I registered as an Independent, I was fully aware that I would not be invited to participate in either parties’ primary - which is as it should be! I don;t give a damn if your state allows it or not - you made your choice, live with it. You'll be able to vote for Prez in November.

If you wanted to vote for a Democrat, why didn't you REGISTER as a freakin’ Democrat? WTF is so hard to figure out?

If you are an Independent, you don’t DESERVE to choose one or the other parties’ delegates. WTF SHOULD you? It’s NOT your party!

Filled out the ballot correctly, my ass! Why were you even THERE???

Didn't anyone take a civics class?


Song(s) of the Day here  

by MedfordTim on 02/06/2008 01:47:58 PM EST


I'm amazed that it's the first time I've heard that and you're 100% correct. A primary is an internal party affair, people from outside the party shouldn't have a say in it. This uniquely American situation comes of course from the lack of diversity in parties. Normally you would have at least 3 major parties and a bunch of smaller ones. Then it's up to the biggest party to try and make a coalition government. Maybe it would be a good thing, if the losing 3rd party candidates could add their votes to the candidates of the Democrats or Republicans. That way people could vote Nader, endorsing his ideas and Nader could gives his votes to the Democrat and get input in policy.

by callisto on 02/06/2008 02:21:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The rules say that you don't have to belong to a party to participate in the nominating primary.  That, contrary to your point about how "it" should be, is how "it" actually is.  Therefore, the procedures used to implement that rule should not hinder that practice.  To allow such hinderances opens up the process to manipulation and corruption.

Either the rules should forbid independents from participating in a party's primary, or the procedures should be absolutely fair and as simple as they really can be made.  These Rove-like unnecessary complications are unethical.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/06/2008 03:19:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, yes, no argument - follow what is on the books. That is ONE point.

Mine is another. If a person declares themself to not be affiliated with a political party out of a personal principle, they should live up to that principle by not trying to interfere in the decisions of a party they didn’t want to associate with. That means not voting in their primary.

This practice, as well as the insane "open party" elections defeat the very purpose of HAVING parties.

Why bother registering for a party? Why bother having parties listed on a ballot? Why not just have a primary consisting of the top top three, no matter who. Then tally up the top three from all states and have a run-off. If all three are Republicans or all three are Democrats, so be it.

Just think of the taxpayer money which won't have to be spent on completely irrelevant conventions.

The current system is a sham.

by MedfordTim on 02/06/2008 04:32:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Why not just have a primary consisting of the top top three, no matter who."

Yeaaaahhh..

The REST of that thought was "no matter how many candidates or from which party, everyone votes for their candidate and the top three people chosen advance to the Nationals."

Sheesh...

by MedfordTim on 02/06/2008 04:40:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How do they get that designation?  What comes before the primary?  You've just extended the election season from two years to three.  And why only three?  I mean, if you're going to have "playoffs", why not go all the way and use an elimination structure that allows a lot of people to enter but quickly whittles down the list to one?

Of course, if we scrapped the whole process that we have now and designed a new one, maybe we could come up with something similar to what you're proposing.  Don't get me wrong: I think you have part of a good idea.

But we can't even get our shit together enough to get rid of the Electoral College, and that should be a lot easier to do.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/06/2008 09:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We agree - the electorial "college" should get it's charter revoked.

That idea was off the cuff, but it wouldn't extend the time at all. The top three would be the top three vote getters of a state.

Simplified version: Hypothetical, 3 state example - extend it in your imagination to all fifty.

In the state primaries, all names are listed and no party affiliation is displayed.

Maine's top three vote getters were Obama, Gravel, & McCain
Kansas had Nader, McCain, & Clinton
Hawaii had Gravel, Romney, & Obama

No more scattershot, "US FIRST" primaries, the second Tuesday of May will be Primary day. Results would be known within two days and the top three national choices have until November to make their case.

There are a lot of other variables to work out, state by state, but election rules for a national office should be uniform across the nation. Local and state elections are unaffected,

Huckabee, Clinton, & Romney are eliminated; Gravel, McCain, & Obama appear on the national ballot for the "winner take all"

by MedfordTim on 02/07/2008 06:31:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe you went to vote on one of the 9,000 amendments/propositions/loc al races/etc.

That's why I went. (I am 'No Party Affiliation' in a closed primary state.)

On a different note, I have a friend who went to vote in the Dem primary in Florida and had both the Democratic candidate list and Republican list show up on her diebold machine.

by jazzchic on 02/06/2008 04:08:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
local measures are the reason or non-political candidates. Open to everyone and you don't have to compromise yourself.

by MedfordTim on 02/06/2008 04:35:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You might hurt zenie's feelings.

All kidding aside, in many states, a voter does not have to register as a Republican or Democrat. Texas is an example. It's great. It's called freedom.

by KenTX on 02/06/2008 07:04:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are going to ask for the Democratic ballot so you can vote for your new favorite politician Barack?

by Hubble on 02/06/2008 08:37:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have visualized myself asking for the Democrat ballot. This is going to be embarrassing.

It might be unlawful for me to loudly exclaim: "I'm only doing this to screw with the Democrat Party!"

by KenTX on 02/07/2008 04:29:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A slight correction. In NO state does anyone HAVE to register with either party (Not a bad notion...) but if someone DOES register with a party, they should be a participating member and choose the representative they want to run as their party nominee. They should not have to put up with a bunch of opposition party members or non-affiliated people voting in THEIR election.

It makes primarys a sham, a mockery even.

Is there no sense of fair play left in this country?

by MedfordTim on 02/06/2008 08:50:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the fact that *if* this story is true, it hurt Obama.

by ihavenobias on 02/06/2008 07:01:15 PM EST


The story that thousands of ballots might not be counted is true.  What is amazing to me is that the county assessor of Los Angeles County is studying the issue to determine if voters might be disenfranchised if their votes are not counted...

...as if that was an actual question.

The simplest solution would be to ignore the bubble.  It serves no useful purpose.  If more than one candidate was selected on any ballot, throw it out.  Count all the others.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/06/2008 09:29:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree that the parties have a right to select their own candidate in a closed primary.  If they choose to leave it open in a state like Kansas where people are simply afraid to register as Dem for fear of not having any say in the government, then that is okay as well.  What I can't understand is why you guys refuse to register as Democrats?  If you become a Democrat, you can actually have some say in the party platform.  As they say, if you don't do something about it, you have no right to complain. 

by schmoab on 02/07/2008 01:20:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
often times people like to view themselves as "independent", even if realistically they're clearly to one side on most issues (or most top issues).

Obviously most people are not ONE HUNDRED PERCENT into the party line of either party.  There are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives for example.  And it's become even more obvious to me that (since signing up at Democratic Underground)  I'm really not a super liberal in some ways (most ways yes, but not all).

For example, I can't stand over the top feminists who get offended by any mention of pornography or any discussion of physical attractiveness.  Or over the top animal rights activists who think meat is murder and want to stop everyone from eating meat. Hell, an even more common progressive position seems to be an incredible level of leniency regarding undocument workers (to the point of absurdity in some cases IMO).

Sure, I don't want a fence or deportation, and I'm not scared of other languages and cultures (technically I speak 3 *sort of*), but that doesn't mean I don't have serious and valid objections to illegal *employers* and the resultant negative effects.

At any rate, back to my original point.  I've noticed that a LOT more people have registered as "independent" in the last several years, and these people like to refer to themselves as such.  It makes them feel good, as if they're above bias and partisanship simply because of their self-awarded title.

Don't get me wrong, obviously there are plenty of *actual* "indepedents" who really don't fall more to one side or another.  And it's complicated...clearly even saying "two sides" doesn't capture the real level of complexity and nuance that exists in politics.

Still, at the end of the day I'm often skeptical of those who call themselves independent.  If they hate BOTH parties, I get it.  Then again that's (unfortunately) the only game in town, so if you don't show *some* level of support and or criticism of the two teams, it could be you who loses in the end.

by ihavenobias on 02/07/2008 08:52:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: