The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Ou-yo-yu what a nice site!
http://www.newfxlive.com/excellent-forex-trading-system.html " target="_top">excellent forex trading system

There were NO Ballot Shortages, and NO Flood delays.

BUT, once AGAIN, the Districts in Ohio with Very Large Black Populations, concocted another BOGUS excuse to extend their Polling!

Come November, NOBODY better allow ANY Extensions in the entire State of OHIO, For ANY Reason! :-(

Or Floriduh!

Mail in your Ballots EARLY, or accept the Official Closing Times!

Do you register voters? And if so, how can ridings run short of ballots?

Why not register voters? That way you'd have a reasonable idea of ballots required.
Unregistered voters could still vote with ID showing address. States could allow for a percentage of nonregistered citizens.

In the California primary, the polls in San Francisco also stayed open two hours longer, again because of ballot shortages. The Democrats in California allow Independents to vote in whichever party's primary they choose to. Which means that it makes it more difficult to predict the number of ballots that will be necessary.

People, the back and forth about longer opening times for polling stations who ran out of ballots is just incredible. I'm observing the elections from Europe: Is the US a part of the industrialized world or some banana republic? Did you guys run out of paper? I can't believe it...

Not all polling places are created equal. A big thing about the 2004 elections as well as the 2000 elections was the disenfranchisement of voters, particularly in urban areas. There were often not enough polling workers, or voting machines, or ballots for the people who come to vote. Occasionally there is also rain, which for people waiting in lines up to an hour, can be a big downer.

In contrast, smaller, less populated suburbs don't have these issues as they have enough resources for the people they are serving. If I go to my polling station I can be out within 10 minutes as there are typically only 5 people in line in front of me. So comparing the two situations is not really equal, its like comparing any public good that is stretched to serve many more people then it was origionally intended for.

One would think after the fiascos of 2000 in Florida and in Ohio in 2004 the state of Ohio could hire some capable people to run their elections. Ohioans should demand more of their elected officials.

If Hillary stays in after tonight, she will be remembered as this election cycle's version of Ralph Nader in 2000.

Time to move on ...

CNN just called Texas for John SIDNEY McCain -- with Vermont and Ohio, that makes him the GOP nominee. Congrats!!!

I told you Hillary DIANE Clinton would win Ohio ; )

Based on the MSNBC exit polling (assuming it is accurate), it appears Clinton will win Ohio with between 52% and 53% of the vote with Obama between 47% and 48%.

According to the exit polls, 59% of the voters were women with Clinton receiving 54% of their vote to 45% for Obama. 41% of the voters were men with Obama receiving 52% of their vote to 47% for Clinton.

Also according to the exit polls, Clinton carried the northeast part of the state 61% to 39%. Obama apparently carried the rest of the state winning Cuyuhoga County 59% to 41%; Central Ohio 51% to 48%; Toledo and the northwest 55% to 44%; and Cincinnati/Dayton 51% to 49%.

If the MSNBC exit polls are correct, how much does that victory translate into delegates for either candidate?

You can check the entire exit poll by going to MSNBC and clicking Ohio under exit polls.

If the Obama campaign is so concerned about "everyone having the chance to vote," then how come the Obama campaign isn't concerned about the votes by voters in Florida and Michigan being counted? Instead, the Obama campaign would rather disenfranchise those voters even though Obama was on the ballot in Florida and aired t.v. ads in Florida.

As for Michigan, Obama was on the ballot. He was the one whom chose to take away a choice from Michigan voters by removing his name from the ballot.

These are just two examples of how the Obama campaign is trying to steal this election and now they want extra time for their voters in Ohio too.

So no one is ever disenfranchised, the polls should remain open forever.

This is not a question of what "should" be allowed or a position that a campaign can take. Legally anyone in line to vote by closing time must be allowed to vote. To send them away would be a case of unlawful disenfranchisement and would be a blatantly illegal.

Note to those who say voters who are still in line are irresponsible: On Super Tuesday I went to vote at 6 pm in Phoenix and waited an hour and a half in line to vote. Many people who were behind me in line had also come on time but did not get the opportunity to vote until 8:30 or later. Were we irresponsible for daring to vote after work? Or was Maricopa county irresponsible for not hiring enough poll workers or printing enough ballots?

In 2006, a federal judge ordered election officials to keep 16 Cleveland-area polls open until 9:00 p.m. Eastern because of earlier voting as well:

http://www.kxmc.com/t/politics/63323.asp

They extended poll hours in Maryland a few weeks ago due to icy conditions and record turnout, so it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.

But that was during a primary that not many people cared about, nationally anyhow.

It is inexcusable for anyone in a state that allows for early voting, like Texas and Ohio, to be rushing to the polls at the last minute.

That said, if someone is in line when the polls close, they must be allowed to vote. But much like the "This check stand is closed" sign a supermarket will put up behind a customer in line, so should polling places. No one who shows up after the posted poll closing time should be allowed to vote.

Being on-time is part of being a responsible citizen (and human being), and with early voting open at least a week in advance in these states, there should be zero reason for debate.

For the record, I am not a Hillary DIANE Clinton supporter (and my response would be the same if her campaign had made the request), but if there are not enough ballots, anyone who was in line by the regular closing time should be allowed to vote.

This issue comes up regularly, particularly this year, with record turnouts. I would hope the campaigns would have a consistent position at least. Voters who were in line at the time polls close should be allowed to vote, it seems to me.

Roosevelt1:

Did you miss the part about some polling places being extended until 9 p.m. in Sandusky due to flooding?

well put lostintranslation

Let me guess. Because it is the Obama campaign that has requested the extension, Clinton supporters here are saying -- nope, rules are rules, and we start counting at 7:30, period. And Obama supporters are saying -- we have to make sure that everyone who wants to vote can vote. Is there no one who is thinking about right and wrong here?

To me it would seem clear enough that people should not be denied the right to vote because their polling place has run out of ballots -- think of how readily such a practice could be abused -- but hey, that's me.

Roosevelt1 ???????????????? You are in the wrong country.

Everyone should have the chance to vote. This is perfectly within the law and perefctly appropriate.

In Ohio we close the polls according to Eastern Standard Time..7:30 p.m. the polls are closed, the store is closed, lights out. Time to count.

Anyone in line by closing should be allowed to vote as soon as they get more ballots there.