Not that I don't think it's hilarious that half of Detroit ballots (which went 95% for Clinton) can't be recounted under Michigan law, because the votes sent to the Secretary of State don't match the number of voters ostensibly signed into the poll books on election day, but I really can't understand how that law is supposed to work. It seems to freeze in place whatever overcounted vote was produced by the Detroit machine. How would anyone ever succeed in throwing out the votes that exceed the number legitimately signed into the poll books?
In many years of working the polls and serving as an election judge, I can remember exactly one instance in which my cast-ballot total differed from the poll-book total by exactly one vote. People, it is just not that hard when you're making an effort to be honest.
6 comments:
Your demand for honesty is a microaggression and an invasion of my safe space for having my way.
Eric Hines
... I really can't understand how that law is supposed to work. It seems to freeze in place whatever overcounted vote was produced by the Detroit machine. How would anyone ever succeed in throwing out the votes that exceed the number legitimately signed into the poll books?
Dang, womyn. You say that like it's a *bad* thing.
Others tell me the way I'm supposed to read the statute is that, in a recount, all the votes from any mis-matched precinct are not counted at all, but the recount otherwise proceeds. That could make more sense.
I can't see how it could be read that way, the language seems pretty plain that the original election night count stands.
I suppose that's to avoid someone making sure that one person at each precinct runs their ballot through twice, or if workers there- misses one, or miscounts by one, in districts where their opponent is strongly favored, then asking for a recount knowing those votes wouldn't be counted (if they were deemed to be tainted and the precinct thrown out instead of left alone).
Good point. So I still don't see how it's supposed to work, though I'm pleased about any process that exposes chaos and incompetence at the polls. Yesterday the Michigan House passed a strict voter i.d. law. We'll see how it does in the Michigan Senate.
Voter ID and being strict up front is essential, the rest is shutting the barn door after the horses have gone. You're either disenfranchising legal votes if you don't recount whole districts if they can't now be trusted to be 'clean', or letting stand possibly illegally cast votes. No win. It has to be enforced and stopped up front. As I've always been told, if you're going to do it, do it right the first time.
Post a Comment