The Worst President in history has been reelected

[Dot Com]

elections over fellers/rw'ers

 

[expatriate]

Oh...and Geezer....

do yourself a favor and go look at page three and four in your own PDF link:

http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf Docs/2012 General/rescan/GEMS SOVC REPORT.pdf

it shows the number of registered voters in each polling location and the number of votes cast for president and vice president in each location. Just as I said, the number of votes cast for president and vice president is nearly exactly one half of the "cards cast" number listed on pages 1 and 2.

Sometimes, when something looks too good to be true, that's because it is too good to be true.

Nearly exactly? Shouldn't it be exactly? If it's not exactly, still means there's shenanigans going on, as I point out in response to the link you showed. "Nearly exactly" don't count when it's supposed to be exactly.

and no. it does not have to be exactly. some voters may have chosen to only vote on issues and/or candidates on one of the two ballot sheets... my wife, for example, refused to vote on any local issues on our ballots because we live in Mexico. SHe did not mail back as many "cards" as I did.

 

[ecinicola]

We have 4 more bad years ahead of us unless something is done. The crook holder is going to stay for another 4 yrs, and the courts are made up of liberal judges who protect and do what obama wants. Look for a tax hike, and look for all our freedoms gone. Its going to be tough and i hope the ones that voted this bunch back in office suffer the most. I saw the black people are now demanding obama pay up for their votes. What a joke, cus obama isn't going to pay up to them. Lord help us in the next years.

 

[daveman]

why would you say such a baseless thing as that, besides the obvious "envious denial" motive? When I was back in Annapolis earlier in the fall for my reunion, I was pleased and proud to see the large number of my classmates from my company alone that had also achieved that status.

Uh huh. Just the other day, I was just saying to my girlfriend, Scarlett Johansson, that people can say anything on the internet.

I didn't say it was you specifically, genius. I said "the left". Do at least try to keep up.

p.s. can you see the desperate tone your posts have taken over the past day or so?

I can see that you're imagining things. Of course, you can't be a leftist without a huge ability for self-deception.

it is pretty unbelievable that a self proclaimed Stephen King fan would be Scarlett's boyfriend when pretty much the whole world knows that she is currently hooked with Romain Dauriac (I actually didn't know that, but my wife did!) Why would you think it would be so unbelievable for a 62 year old man who did 25 years in the Navy and had a few other lucrative career moves along the way might find himself independently wealthy at this stage of his life? I have plenty of income. I don't ever need to work again... I can goof around and do as much or as little as I want to every day. I would do more , but I am still in a sling from rotator cuff surgery last month... I spent some time in politics while still in the states - all behind the scenes - and it has always interested me since I was a child. I have always been a democrat, and can't see that changing any time soon. I certainly don't delude or deceive myself - or you - in any way.

Again... you brought up the titanic, not me. You seemed to be predicting world ending disaster... maybe if you quit trying so hard to be a wise guy, and just had conversations with people instead of trying to score points and "win" something, you might find the experience more enjoyable... I know I certainly would. Except, of course, when it comes to this past election, which was a great and fun game for me to watch... and which I was extremely pleased that my team "won"... and that your team lost. But that football spiking euphoria in me will end soon, I imagine, and we both would be better served by discussions that lent themselves to finding common ground rather than assigning blame.

How would you like to restart on that note?

How about this:

I write what I like.

You write what you like.

Deal?

 

[expatriate]

deal

 

[expatriate]

If we use your hypothesis, then voting precinct 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County, which reported a 182.47% turnout, dividing that in half, like you divided the 141% in half to come up with the 70.4% number you cite, that would be a 91.2% voter turnout for 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County. Uh huh...sure.

Actually...that polling place did have rather high voter turnout. there are 850 registered voters there, and of that number, 773 of them cast ballots for president and vice president.

638 of them voted for Romney and 145 of them voted for Obama.

that's all right there in the link that you provided. The turnout was less than 71 percent throughout the reported region... some areas higher, some lower... but overall, it was less than the 77 percent turnout the same area had in 2008.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Did you read the link I provided at 9:34 this morning? Obviously not. "cards cast" indicates the number of "cards" that were put through the voting machine. In this particular election, given the number of races and ballot questions and bond issues, each voter was issued two sheets upon which to make all his or her choices. For example, when I voted absentee this year, there were four different sheets that I had to mark that would, when they arrived back in the states, be fed into a machine showing that this one voter cast four "cards".

Yes, I read it and responded to it. And, prove that it would be shown as one voter casting four cards, rather than four sheets being considered one card. One voter card, whether it be two sheets, three sheets, or twenty sheets, would be considered one card, just like a roll of toilet paper, whether it's got 200 sheets, 500 sheets or 1,000 sheets, is considered one roll of toilet paper.

did you read the number of votes cast for president and vice president in each polling place that is on page 3 and 4 of YOUR link? yes or no?

Yes, I did. And, if there were 123,301 votes cast and there were two sheets cast and each of these sheets are considered a card cast, that would be 123,301 x two cards cast, which would equal 246,602 card cast. The document claims there are 247,383 cards cast. It just doesn't jive. Additionally, while this document claims there were 123,301 votes cast, this website http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/florida/ says there were 123,026 votes cast in St. Lucie. But, if you say that each card cast represents two sheets, which is why the total number of cards cast is more than the number of registered voters then, if the number of cards cast is 247,383 we can divide that by the two cards cast, that means there would have been 123,691.5 or, 123,692 voters casting two sheets, each sheet being considered a card cast. So, seems we've got a lot of inconsistencies here.

They claim the number of votes for president was 123,301.
Politico claims the number of votes for president was 123,026.
And, if we use the hypothesis that each vote cast consisted of two sheets, each one being considered a card cast and there are 247,383 cards cast, we have to divide that by two to come up with 123,691.5 or 123,692 votes cast.

So, which is it?

123,301 votes cast?
123,026 votes cast?
Or, 123,691.5 or 123,692 votes cast?

If we got by what the PDF document says, it says that the number of votes cast for president was 123,301. And, if we go by the PDF document and your claim that each sheet cast was considered a card cast and there were 247,383 cards cast, we can surmise that the number of votes cast was the number of cards cast divided by two, which is 123,692.

So, if there were 123,692 cards cast and 123,301 votes for president cast, then what were the other 391 cards cast for?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Oh...and Geezer....

do yourself a favor and go look at page three and four in your own PDF link:

http://www.slcelections.com/Pdf Docs/2012 General/rescan/GEMS SOVC REPORT.pdf

it shows the number of registered voters in each polling location and the number of votes cast for president and vice president in each location. Just as I said, the number of votes cast for president and vice president is nearly exactly one half of the "cards cast" number listed on pages 1 and 2.

Sometimes, when something looks too good to be true, that's because it is too good to be true.

Nearly exactly? Shouldn't it be exactly? If it's not exactly, still means there's shenanigans going on, as I point out in response to the link you showed. "Nearly exactly" don't count when it's supposed to be exactly.

again... your link shows that the number of votes for president and vice president is nearly exactly half of the cards cast in each voting place. your own link disproves your thesis.

Come back when you've got something better than "nearly exactly". "Nearly exactly" doesn't count. It should be exactly or something shady is going on.

 

[expatriate]

Nearly exactly? Shouldn't it be exactly? If it's not exactly, still means there's shenanigans going on, as I point out in response to the link you showed. "Nearly exactly" don't count when it's supposed to be exactly.

again... your link shows that the number of votes for president and vice president is nearly exactly half of the cards cast in each voting place. your own link disproves your thesis.

Come back when you've got something better than "nearly exactly". "Nearly exactly" doesn't count. It should be exactly or something shady is going on.

That is patently incorrect. No voter is required to vote for every issue or every candidate. If a voter choses to not submit one page because he or she chose not to vote on any issue contained on that page, the numbers would not be exactly divisible by half. I showed you the very precinct you mentioned... I showed you how many registered voters there were and how many voted... and who they voted for. Romney kicked ass in that county.... and only 70+% of the registered voters voted and only that number of votes for president and vice president were tabulated. IT'S ALL IN YOUR OWN LINK IF YOU'D READ PAST PAGE TWO!

 

[expatriate]

not every "card" concerns presidential voting. Some "cards" routinely list all the bond issues. Other "cards" might have other ballot initiatives. In the case of your link, the voters were given two cards each. One of them had the presidential choices, and the other did not. Some voters chose to make voting choices on the presidential "card" and not the other.... like, as I said, my own wife did this election when dealing with the FOUR cards that our former home city provided us with. You need to turn on some old Lawrence Welk replays and calm down old geezer.... you're starting to not make a whole lot of sense.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

If we use your hypothesis, then voting precinct 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County, which reported a 182.47% turnout, dividing that in half, like you divided the 141% in half to come up with the 70.4% number you cite, that would be a 91.2% voter turnout for 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County. Uh huh...sure.

Actually...that polling place did have rather high voter turnout. there are 850 registered voters there, and of that number, 773 of them cast ballots for president and vice president.

Well, then, in that case, your claim that there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast doesn't jive. If there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast, that means there should have been 773 x 2 sheets(cards) cast = 1,546. The PDF claims there were 1,551 cards cast. That's five more cards cast than should have been cast.

Furthermore, no, 773 of them did not cast ballots for president. There was a vote cast for Jill Stein, making it 774 votes cast. And, again, using your claim that voters cast two sheets, each one being considered a card cast, that still only comes out to 774 x 2 = 1,548, rather than the 1,551 cards cast the document claims were cast. So, the numbers just simply aren't adding up.

 

[Zoom]

I wasn't paying attention. Who won?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

again... your link shows that the number of votes for president and vice president is nearly exactly half of the cards cast in each voting place. your own link disproves your thesis.

Come back when you've got something better than "nearly exactly". "Nearly exactly" doesn't count. It should be exactly or something shady is going on.

That is patently incorrect. No voter is required to vote for every issue or every candidate. If a voter choses to not submit one page because he or she chose not to vote on any issue contained on that page, the numbers would not be exactly divisible by half. I showed you the very precinct you mentioned... I showed you how many registered voters there were and how many voted... and who they voted for. Romney kicked ass in that county.... and only 70+% of the registered voters voted and only that number of votes for president and vice president were tabulated. IT'S ALL IN YOUR OWN LINK IF YOU'D READ PAST PAGE TWO!

Hey, you're the one who said the reason the number of cards cast was significantly more than the number of registered voters was because each voter cast two sheets, each sheet being considered a card cast and, thus, each voter cast two cards. If several numbers of people cast only one sheet, and it was still considered a card cast, then that still seems strange that the number of cards cast is significantly more than the number of registered voters. All you're doing is digging yourself deeper. If the number of registered voters for this place of voting is 850 and the number of cards cast is 1,551 and now you're saying that some of those cards being cast was a single sheet being cast by one voter then that makes the fact that 1,551 cards being cast in a place which had only 850 registered voters seem more dubious.

Further, whether a voter chooses not to vote on some particular issue on one page, is that voter still not required to submit the page so it can be counted as a zero vote for that particular given issue? Since no one is supposed to be in the voting booth with you, how do they know you aren't submitting the particular sheet because you chose not to vote on some particular given issue or issues on that given page? Even if you choose not to vote on an issue on that page wouldn't necessarily mean you aren't supposed to submit the page so it can be counted as a zero vote for that issue or issues that are on that page.

Further still, St. Lucie voters are submitting pages, rather than using an electronic voting booth? I don't particularly know how it's done in St. Lucie but, in my county, electronic voting machines were used and you slid in a card, cast your vote, removed the card and handed it back to the voting station worker and you were done. You didn't submit pages and decide whether you were or weren't going to submit one page because you chose not to vote on some issue. Those pages are contained within the machine and the voter didn't touch the pages. The vote counters touched the pages and if there were two pages there, both pages were counted whether you voted on some issue or not.

And, lastly, that you claim Romney kicked ass in St. Lucie county? Are you serious?

 

[expatriate]

If we use your hypothesis, then voting precinct 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County, which reported a 182.47% turnout, dividing that in half, like you divided the 141% in half to come up with the 70.4% number you cite, that would be a 91.2% voter turnout for 065 Harb Ridg Clubhouse - County. Uh huh...sure.

Actually...that polling place did have rather high voter turnout. there are 850 registered voters there, and of that number, 773 of them cast ballots for president and vice president.

Well, then, in that case, your claim that there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast doesn't jive. If there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast, that means there should have been 773 x 2 sheets(cards) cast = 1,546. The PDF claims there were 1,551 cards cast. That's five more cards cast than should have been cast.

Furthermore, no, 773 of them did not cast ballots for president. There was a vote cast for Jill Stein, making it 774 votes cast. And, again, using your claim that voters cast two sheets, each one being considered a card cast, that still only comes out to 774 x 2 = 1,548, rather than the 1,551 cards cast the document claims were cast. So, the numbers just simply aren't adding up.

they don't NEED to add up. No one is required to fill out or submit both sheets. Some voters may have wanted to vote on bond issues and not the presidency... some may have wanted to vote on the presidency and not the other issues...

the point remains... you originally claimed that more people voted for president than there were voters registered. That was flat out wrong. You've tap danced about a lot of things but everything you have complained about is explained in your own link. YOU were the one who posted it as an accurate source. stand by it. It explains your questions in terms that most intelligent people can easily understand.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Actually...that polling place did have rather high voter turnout. there are 850 registered voters there, and of that number, 773 of them cast ballots for president and vice president.

Well, then, in that case, your claim that there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast doesn't jive. If there were two sheets and each sheet was being counted as a card cast, that means there should have been 773 x 2 sheets(cards) cast = 1,546. The PDF claims there were 1,551 cards cast. That's five more cards cast than should have been cast.

Furthermore, no, 773 of them did not cast ballots for president. There was a vote cast for Jill Stein, making it 774 votes cast. And, again, using your claim that voters cast two sheets, each one being considered a card cast, that still only comes out to 774 x 2 = 1,548, rather than the 1,551 cards cast the document claims were cast. So, the numbers just simply aren't adding up.

they don't NEED to add up. No one is required to fill out or submit both sheets. Some voters may have wanted to vote on bond issues and not the presidency... some may have wanted to vote on the presidency and not the other issues...

the point remains... you originally claimed that more people voted for president than there were voters registered. That was flat out wrong. You've tap danced about a lot of things but everything you have complained about is explained in your own link. YOU were the one who posted it as an accurate source. stand by it. It explains your questions in terms that most intelligent people can easily understand.

Sure they need to add up. This isn't a matter of liberals' fuzzy math. This is a case of voting and you damn well right it had better add up. And, as I said, if you're claiming that untold numbers didn't submit one sheet because they aren't required to fill out or submit both sheets, then this makes the fact that the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters being significantly more yet even more dubious. Again, you're the one who claimed that the reason the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters was because voters cast two sheets, which were each counted as a card cast. Now, you're changing your conveniently changing your story to try and posit an argument which is only, in actuality, digging you deeper. And, lastly, no, I originally claimed the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters. And, then, you proceeded to claim the reason for this was because each voter submitted two sheets, each one being counted as a card cast. And, now, conveniently, you're changing your story to some cast two sheets and it was counted as a card cast while others only submitted one sheet of which was counted as a card cast. And, in this instance, it makes my original claim more significant as it puts the number of voters more closely to the number of registered voters or, even at a level which exceeds the number of registered voters, depending on how many people submitted only one sheet, which was counted as a card cast. And, lastly, I just simply don't buy your BS that, somehow, you can choose to only vote on the issues on one page and the other page is just simply thrown away. Even if you choose not to vote on any issue on one page, I suspect you still have to submit the page so it can be counted by the voting station worker who counts the votes as a zero vote for whatever issue or issues it is that's on the one page.

 

[expatriate]

they don't NEED to add up. No one is required to fill out or submit both sheets. Some voters may have wanted to vote on bond issues and not the presidency... some may have wanted to vote on the presidency and not the other issues...

the point remains... you originally claimed that more people voted for president than there were voters registered. That was flat out wrong. You've tap danced about a lot of things but everything you have complained about is explained in your own link. YOU were the one who posted it as an accurate source. stand by it. It explains your questions in terms that most intelligent people can easily understand.

Sure they need to add up. This isn't a matter of liberals' fuzzy math. This is a case of voting and you damn well right it had better add up. And, as I said, if you're claiming that untold numbers didn't submit one sheet because they aren't required to fill out or submit both sheets, then this makes the fact that the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters being significantly more yet even more dubious. Again, you're the one who claimed that the reason the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters was because voters cast two sheets, which were each counted as a card cast. Now, you're changing your conveniently changing your story to try and posit an argument which is only, in actuality, digging you deeper. And, lastly, no, I originally claimed the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters. And, then, you proceeded to claim the reason for this was because each voter submitted two sheets, each one being counted as a card cast. And, now, conveniently, you're changing your story to some cast two sheets and it was counted as a card cast while others only submitted one sheet of which was counted as a card cast. And, in this instance, it makes my original claim more significant as it puts the number of voters more closely to the number of registered voters or, even at a level which exceeds the number of registered voters, depending on how many people submitted only one sheet, which was counted as a card cast. And, lastly, I just simply don't buy your BS that, somehow, you can choose to only vote on the issues on one page and the other page is just simply thrown away. Even if you choose not to vote on any issue on one page, I suspect you still have to submit the page so it can be counted by the voting station worker who counts the votes as a zero vote for whatever issue or issues it is that's on the one page.

this from the guy that claimed that more people voted that were registered to vote. I am not really sure you are an "old geezer" at all. Have you ever voted? Have you ever voted in some place different than where you voted the last time? Do you honestly think that everyone votes the way you do? Some people use electronic voting machines... some people mark their ballots by hand and then feed them into a voting machine. Some other people mark their ballots and slide them into a box where they are counted after the polls close. There is NO standard for the way Americans vote. No one said that anyone THREW any ballots away - even though that is PRECISELY what my wife did in the case of the four pages of our absentee ballot... she tossed three here in the trash in Mexico and mailed one back to the states... where it was fed into a machine with the rest from our former town... but other towns in that state do it differently. Voters, after they are recorded and given their ballots, can refuse to take ones, simply saying that they are not interested in casting votes on those questions... there are a host of legitimate reasons why the numbers are not exactly equally divisible by two. The fact remains. In the PDF that YOU posted, it shows how many registered voters there were in each precinct and it showed how many ballots were cast for president and vice president in each of those precincts. NONE of them had more presidential ballots cast than there were registered voters, which was you ORIGINAL contention... and NOTHING in the PDF that YOU presented as PROOF of voter irregularity showed ANYTHING that would suggest voter irregularity. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You are a moron - old and crotchety or otherwise - but still a moron. I will be WAITING for the giant law suits from all the GOP lawyers who somehow agree with YOU that voter fraud was rampant even when the data that you present shows otherwise. YOu need to accept defeat.

Face it. Your magic underwear Mittens man got his ASS kicked. FAIR and SQUARE. THe GOP LOST. YOU lost. You're a loser. Own it.

 

[EriktheRed]

I wasn't paying attention. Who won?

Definitely wasn't all the new sock puppets who've sprung up here lately.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

they don't NEED to add up. No one is required to fill out or submit both sheets. Some voters may have wanted to vote on bond issues and not the presidency... some may have wanted to vote on the presidency and not the other issues...

the point remains... you originally claimed that more people voted for president than there were voters registered. That was flat out wrong. You've tap danced about a lot of things but everything you have complained about is explained in your own link. YOU were the one who posted it as an accurate source. stand by it. It explains your questions in terms that most intelligent people can easily understand.

Sure they need to add up. This isn't a matter of liberals' fuzzy math. This is a case of voting and you damn well right it had better add up. And, as I said, if you're claiming that untold numbers didn't submit one sheet because they aren't required to fill out or submit both sheets, then this makes the fact that the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters being significantly more yet even more dubious. Again, you're the one who claimed that the reason the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters was because voters cast two sheets, which were each counted as a card cast. Now, you're changing your conveniently changing your story to try and posit an argument which is only, in actuality, digging you deeper. And, lastly, no, I originally claimed the number of cards cast significantly outnumbered the number of registered voters. And, then, you proceeded to claim the reason for this was because each voter submitted two sheets, each one being counted as a card cast. And, now, conveniently, you're changing your story to some cast two sheets and it was counted as a card cast while others only submitted one sheet of which was counted as a card cast. And, in this instance, it makes my original claim more significant as it puts the number of voters more closely to the number of registered voters or, even at a level which exceeds the number of registered voters, depending on how many people submitted only one sheet, which was counted as a card cast. And, lastly, I just simply don't buy your BS that, somehow, you can choose to only vote on the issues on one page and the other page is just simply thrown away. Even if you choose not to vote on any issue on one page, I suspect you still have to submit the page so it can be counted by the voting station worker who counts the votes as a zero vote for whatever issue or issues it is that's on the one page.

this from the guy that claimed that more people voted that were registered to vote. I am not really sure you are an "old geezer" at all. Have you ever voted? Have you ever voted in some place different than where you voted the last time? Do you honestly think that everyone votes the way you do? Some people use electronic voting machines... some people mark their ballots by hand and then feed them into a voting machine. Some other people mark their ballots and slide them into a box where they are counted after the polls close. There is NO standard for the way Americans vote. No one said that anyone THREW any ballots away - even though that is PRECISELY what my wife did in the case of the four pages of our absentee ballot... she tossed three here in the trash in Mexico and mailed one back to the states... where it was fed into a machine with the rest from our former town... but other towns in that state do it differently. Voters, after they are recorded and given their ballots, can refuse to take ones, simply saying that they are not interested in casting votes on those questions... there are a host of legitimate reasons why the numbers are not exactly equally divisible by two. The fact remains. In the PDF that YOU posted, it shows how many registered voters there were in each precinct and it showed how many ballots were cast for president and vice president in each of those precincts. NONE of them had more presidential ballots cast than there were registered voters, which was you ORIGINAL contention... and NOTHING in the PDF that YOU presented as PROOF of voter irregularity showed ANYTHING that would suggest voter irregularity. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You are a moron - old and crotchety or otherwise - but still a moron. I will be WAITING for the giant law suits from all the GOP lawyers who somehow agree with YOU that voter fraud was rampant even when the data that you present shows otherwise. YOu need to accept defeat.

Face it. Your magic underwear Mittens man got his ASS kicked. FAIR and SQUARE. THe GOP LOST. YOU lost. You're a loser. Own it.

First, LOL that you're in Mexico. And, I doubt one is supposed to just simply throw their pieces of ballots away. Your wife's vote probably wasn't even counted due to not following appropriate voting procedures.

Second, I never claimed to know what procedures it is other places take to vote. However, I highly doubt they allow the voter to just simply discard pages of their ballot. But, if they do and in many instances those cards cast in which only one sheet was entered is being considered a card cast then this doesn't jive with the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters.

Third...oh, well, if your claim is true that there are two pages and each one is counted as one card cast then, of course it's not going to show as being more than the number of registered voters. However, the only question is, since you claim one sheet can still be counted as a card cast, how many people cast only one sheet of paper and it was counted as a card cast. Further, you just can't seem to make up your mind on this issue. First, you say there were two pages and each page was counted as a card cast and, then, you claim your wife's ballot consisted of four pages. LOL! You just keep revising stuff as you go along. So, was each of those four pages counted as a card cast? Or, only two? :-/

Fourth, there are no legitimate reasons why the numbers don't add up. At least, they haven't presented any. You and I can only guess as to what those alleged "legitimate reasons" are.

Fifth, I can find all kinds of voter irregularities.

Why did all the votes cast for president at 001 Lakewood Pk Vil Hall - County, equal 100.01%? Why did all the votes cast for president at 084 Robert E Minsky Gym - City of PSL equal 99.97%? How did Obama manage to get 91.76% of the vote at 014 Mirc Pray Temp Inc.? How did Obama manage to get 98.75% of the vote at 017 St. Paul A.M.E. Ch - City of FP D1? How did Obama manage to get 97.35% of the vote at 018 Lincoln Park Rec Ctr - City of FP D1? Sounds fishy too me.

Sixth and lastly. I notice you have a fetish for "magic underwear". Was you raped by a Mormon...or something? Or, did a bunch of bullies hold you down and put a pair of Mormon underwear over your head?

 

[expatriate]

First, LOL that you're in Mexico. And, I doubt one is supposed to just simply throw their pieces of ballots away. Your wife's vote probably wasn't even counted due to not following appropriate voting procedures.

actually, your totally baseless and ignorant "doubts" are valueless. We followed the procedures for out state that required that we submit only completed ballots back to the registrar. That's how OUR state worked it.

Second, I never claimed to know what procedures it is other places take to vote. However, I highly doubt they allow the voter to just simply discard pages of their ballot. But, if they do and in many instances those cards cast in which only one sheet was entered is being considered a card cast then this doesn't jive with the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters.

and again... if you don't know the procedures, why do you continue to pontificate on how you think it ought to work? Voters are free to turn in those ballots that contain voting information that they wish to have tabulated. period. No one really cares if, with procedures in place, the number of cards cast is LESS than the total could possibly be. Care only arises when the total os more than it could polssibly be. In your PDF, there are no instances of that.

Third...oh, well, if your claim is true that there are two pages and each one is counted as one card cast then, of course it's not going to show as being more than the number of registered voters. However, the only question is, since you claim one sheet can still be counted as a card cast, how many people cast only one sheet of paper and it was counted as a card cast. Further, you just can't seem to make up your mind on this issue. First, you say there were two pages and each page was counted as a card cast and, then, you claim your wife's ballot consisted of four pages. LOL! You just keep revising stuff as you go along. So, was each of those four pages counted as a card cast? Or, only two? :-/

the check to see if more people voted for president than ought to is contained in the follow on data in your PDF. It clearly shows that less than half or less than half of the total cards cast were for the president and vice president. And AGAIN... I did not vote absentee in FLORIDA. St. Lucie County had a two sheet ballot. The town were my wife and I voted - located in New England - had a four sheet ballot. Apples and Oranges.

Fourth, there are no legitimate reasons why the numbers don't add up. At least, they haven't presented any. You and I can only guess as to what those alleged "legitimate reasons" are.

yes there is. there is no requirement that voters return every page of ballot material given to them. There is no requirement that they make marks and choices on every page of ballot material given them. Requiring that cards cast "add up" exactly to the number of voters who appeared to vote times the number of pages of ballot material given each of them is not a necessary check on the validity of the system.

Fifth, I can find all kinds of voter irregularities.

Why did all the votes cast for president at 001 Lakewood Pk Vil Hall - County, equal 100.01%? Why did all the votes cast for president at 084 Robert E Minsky Gym - City of PSL equal 99.97%? How did Obama manage to get 91.76% of the vote at 014 Mirc Pray Temp Inc.? How did Obama manage to get 98.75% of the vote at 017 St. Paul A.M.E. Ch - City of FP D1? How did Obama manage to get 97.35% of the vote at 018 Lincoln Park Rec Ctr - City of FP D1? Sounds fishy too me.

Let me address a few of these for you: Lakewood Pk Vil Hall: 4815 registered voters. total votes for president and vice president: 3360 -1920 for Romney, 1398 for Obama, 4 for Stevens, 18 for Johnson. that is LESS than 100%, not 100.1% as you incorrectly calculated. At the Minsky Gym, they had nine blank votes. Why did Obama get a lot of votes at a Jewish temple voting place? Same reason he got the lion's share at a polling place in an all black church. What you call "sounding fishy" sounds like a moron who doesn't understand demographics. Obama got 93% of the black vote everywhere, why would the AME Church be any different?

But like I said...you posted that PDF to show how outrageous it was and how obviously rampantly fraudulent it was where voter turnout was approaching twice as many voters as were registered. YOu have been shown that such a reaction was one of pure and laughable stupidity. I realize you've got concerns about our voting system, and given the cluttered unorganized brain rattling around in your head, I can full undestand why. I have to say that I have concerns as to how you can make it through the day and pay for a hamburger and get correct change. You really are one of the stupidest posters I've ever seen here...

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

First, LOL that you're in Mexico. And, I doubt one is supposed to just simply throw their pieces of ballots away. Your wife's vote probably wasn't even counted due to not following appropriate voting procedures.

actually, your totally baseless and ignorant "doubts" are valueless.

As are yours.

We followed the procedures for out state that required that we submit only completed ballots back to the registrar. That's how OUR state worked it.

Prove it.

Second, I never claimed to know what procedures it is other places take to vote. However, I highly doubt they allow the voter to just simply discard pages of their ballot. But, if they do and in many instances those cards cast in which only one sheet was entered is being considered a card cast then this doesn't jive with the number of cards cast as opposed to the number of registered voters.

and again... if you don't know the procedures, why do you continue to pontificate on how you think it ought to work?

Because I can. Further, since you claim below you were casting your vote in New England, why do you pontificate about what the procedures for Florida are? What do you know of Florida's voting procedures?

Voters are free to turn in those ballots that contain voting information that they wish to have tabulated. period.

Prove it.

No one really cares if, with procedures in place, the number of cards cast is LESS than the total could possibly be.

Well, I know leftists don't really care. Their boy won, that's why.

Care only arises when the total os more than it could polssibly be. In your PDF, there are no instances of that.

Sure there is. There's 247,383 cards cast and, only 175,554 registered voters.

the check to see if more people voted for president than ought to is contained in the follow on data in your PDF. It clearly shows that less than half or less than half of the total cards cast were for the president and vice president.

I don't care what numbers for president are shown. Cast enough cards and you can pick and choose which votes go to whom and throw the rest away in order to make sure the numbers of votes for president cast equal less than the number of registered voters.

And AGAIN... I did not vote absentee in FLORIDA. St. Lucie County had a two sheet ballot. The town were my wife and I voted - located in New England - had a four sheet ballot. Apples and Oranges.

Prove St. Lucie's two-sheet ballot was considered two cards cast. And, again, prove how many submitted two sheets, each one being considered a card cast and, how many submitted only one sheet, being considered a card cast. If what you say is true, if one person submits both sheets and each sheet is considered a card cast, that person is considered to have cast two cards, whereas, if another individual submits only one sheet and it's considered a card cast, that individual cast one card. That would be three cards cast between the two individuals. So, what's important here is how many people submitted only one sheet and it was considered a card cast and, how many people submitted two sheets and it was considered two cards cast. Further, as you explained earlier, you claimed that the actual turnout was something like 70%. The national average is about 57%.

Fourth, there are no legitimate reasons why the numbers don't add up. At least, they haven't presented any. You and I can only guess as to what those alleged "legitimate reasons" are.

yes there is. there is no requirement that voters return every page of ballot material given to them.

Prove it.

There is no requirement that they make marks and choices on every page of ballot material given them.

Didn't say there was a requirement to make marks and choices on every page of ballot material given them.

Requiring that cards cast "add up" exactly to the number of voters who appeared to vote times the number of pages of ballot material given each of them is not a necessary check on the validity of the system.

Sure it is. You don't get to decide what's a necessary check on the validity of the system.

Fifth, I can find all kinds of voter irregularities.

Why did all the votes cast for president at 001 Lakewood Pk Vil Hall - County, equal 100.01%? Why did all the votes cast for president at 084 Robert E Minsky Gym - City of PSL equal 99.97%? How did Obama manage to get 91.76% of the vote at 014 Mirc Pray Temp Inc.? How did Obama manage to get 98.75% of the vote at 017 St. Paul A.M.E. Ch - City of FP D1? How did Obama manage to get 97.35% of the vote at 018 Lincoln Park Rec Ctr - City of FP D1? Sounds fishy too me.

Let me address a few of these for you: Lakewood Pk Vil Hall: 4815 registered voters. total votes for president and vice president: 3360 -1920 for Romney, 1398 for Obama, 4 for Stevens, 18 for Johnson. that is LESS than 100%, not 100.1% as you incorrectly calculated.

Actually, you're wrong. You forgot to take into account the write-in ballots shown on pages 11 and 12. There were nine write-in votes for Lakewood Pk Vil Hall, which equals 100.01% And you've got the gall to call me stupid. LOL!

At the Minsky Gym, they had nine blank votes.

Ah, so we're counting blank votes now? Well, in that case then, there were nine write-in votes for Lakewood Pk Vil Hall and eight blank votes. In that case, it would be MORE than 100.01%. However, if they're counting blank votes, Romney's percentage of the vote and the rest of the candidates' percentage of votes don't add up. They aren't counting blank votes as is clear in the percentage of the vote given to each candidate. However, they are counting write-in votes, which is also clear in the percentage of the vote for each candidate. For instance, if we take Lakewood Pk Vil Hall and add up all the votes for the candidates, that's 3,351 votes. Then, if we add the nine write-in votes, that's 3,360. Romney's 1,920 votes divided by 3,360 equals 57.14% as it says he got.

Why did Obama get a lot of votes at a Jewish temple voting place? Same reason he got the lion's share at a polling place in an all black church. What you call "sounding fishy" sounds like a moron who doesn't understand demographics. Obama got 93% of the black vote everywhere, why would the AME Church be any different?

Oh...so these were black churches? Wow, I guess it doesn't sound so much "fishy" as it does racist. Especially, the 98.75% one. Further, on a separate note...curious, I wonder how come I'm not hearing any whining from leftists over votes being cast in churches and all that separation of church and state jazz. Further still, how do you know they're black churches? I thought you said you're in a small town in New England? How would you know who attends what churches in Florida? And, how do you know any of those places I cited is a Jewish temple...as well?

But like I said...you posted that PDF to show how outrageous it was and how obviously rampantly fraudulent it was where voter turnout was approaching twice as many voters as were registered. YOu have been shown that such a reaction was one of pure and laughable stupidity.

I have been shown no such thing.

I realize you've got concerns about our voting system, and given the cluttered unorganized brain rattling around in your head, I can full undestand why. I have to say that I have concerns as to how you can make it through the day and pay for a hamburger and get correct change.

Why would you concern yourself about how I can make it through the day and pay for a hamburger and get correct change? You're kind of a flake if you concern yourself with me. I know I don't concern myself with you. You're irrelevant and of zero concern too me and, I couldn't care less how you make it through the day and pay for a hamburger and get correct change. Hell, you can't even vote right and, if anything concerns me...it's that.

You really are one of the stupidest posters I've ever seen here...

Yeah, but that isn't saying much coming from a leftist though...right? Or, for that matter, coming from someone who would vote for that punk-in-chief. Further, if you consider me the stupidest poster you've ever seen, why are you still arguing with me? And, why are you getting so frustrated?

And, lastly, I find this comment from a poster on another message board somewhat interesting. Don't know if this poster lives in Florida to know this about their ballots but, this is what this individual says:

LMFAO.... I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary... I've seen liberal suggestions to reasons why... not any evidence...

Especially when people bring up this "cards counted" thing...

Palm Beach County voters warned about very long ballot

The ballot was 6 pages long... how does 6 pages equate to 2 cards?

(plus the fact that they were talking about cutting your vote time down to 30 mins certainly explains why the lines were so long... not because that many people showed up to vote... but because there were problems with the length of the vote)

If the "cards counted" would account for it, than you're suggesting that in many areas the turnout would've been well below 60%...

That doesn't jive with not only the national average for voter turnout... but also the fact that swing states tend to have higher turnout...

Record early voting turnout in St. Lucie County forces library to rearrange schedule

This report on Nov 1 shows that the early vote turnout was at record levels... and many feeling it was the most important election ever...

So, the turnout was obviously high...

Also, there was Ms. Walker's admittance that they counted votes twice... and then removed votes...

St. Lucie elections supervisor admits errors » TCPalm.com
St. Lucie elections supervisor admits errors » TCPalm.com
State 'concerned' about St. Lucie County results in West-Murphy race » TCPalm.com

This is called BS...

So vote counts have changed... with missing ballots, re-included ballots, ballots counted twice... But this lady insists its correct... :roll:

Not many think she's correct...

Fort Pierce mayor's candidate files injunction against St. Lucie elections supervisor » TCPalm.com

That's yet another candidate with a lawsuit regarding her election result counting, and there are 100s of people protesting outside...

So, please tell me just how accurate you insist this vote is... when the lady counting it doesn't even have a clue at this point... I'm listening... really, I am...

Not too fast Liberals