About Those "Ballots" With Only One Candidate's Name On Them...
There's been a bit of confusion out there about supposed "ballots" that have been popping up in Pennsylvania today bearing the name of only one candidate.
Some alarmed readers have written in about them, suggesting voting irregularities. Others have made similar points in the blogosphere.
But these aren't irregularities at all, it turns out.
First, the visuals. Here's one that was sent to us by the Clinton campaign that only has Obama's name on it (click to enlarge)...
...and here's one, courtesy of Wonkette, with only Hillary's name on it (click to enlarge)...
Philly-resident Atrios has an explanation of what this is all about. These are not actual ballots. Rather, they are "sample ballots," handed out by a given candidate's supporters, basically telling voters who to vote for and how to vote for him or her.
To be clear, the Hillary campaign is not alleging irregularities around this. The Hillary camp sent over the Obama-only sample ballot only to clarify that this is happening on both sides and that it isn't irregular. The Obama campaign is not alleging irregularities around the Hillary-only sample ballot, either.
How very stupid. A sample ballot should have S A M P L E printed across its face. A pox on both camps!
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I agree, there should be no confusion.
April 22, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to old-school, PA machine-style politics!
April 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
who knew? Little tricks people, just little tricks.
April 22, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where I come from sample ballots look like regular ballots (though usually a different color) with the all names on it and X's next to the desired candidates' names. You don't want anything confusing voters.
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying this, Mr Sargent.
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty stupid that either side feels the need to send out example ballots telling people which to push. I mean is that really going to change anyone's mind?
I don't know, it just seems a bit ridiculous...but then again, what about this process isn't?
Have they not done this in the past? How come this is the first time people have freaked out about the sample ballots?
April 22, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that each also says "OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC BALLOT" across the top. What a way to confuse voters. Sheesh. Now, my question is whether these ballots could be stuffed into the scanners without detection.......
April 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, according to these ballots, you are to "press number to the right of the name," meaning the actual vote takes place on a voting machine. But I agree, they should say SAMPLE on them.
April 22, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that is confusing. I thought there was a paper trail system in PA.
April 22, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the 2006 Maryland election? Republicans Michael Steele and Robert Ehrlich pulled a variant of this trick, putting themselves at the top of a ballot marked "Democratic Sample Ballot."
April 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they were clever enough not to label it "DEMOCRAT SAMPLE BALLOT."
April 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
April 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonkette is satire.
http://wonkette.com/382658/hillary-clinton-also-worships-satan
April 22, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you sure it's satire?
April 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once gotalife is actually basically right. I don't know if I'd say "satire" exactly but Wonkette basically alternates actual politics news with intentional nonsense. Almost all of their content is some real news link combined with a gonzo or at least wildly inaccurate summary. A regular Wonkette reader, upon seeing the post that had this ballot (the summary said something along the lines of "this is from Democratic Underground so it's probably fake"), would have concluded Wonkette posted it because they thought it was funny and not because they actually thought it was for real.
If you look up Wonkette on Google News, Google actually classifies them as "(Satire)".
April 22, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
http://wonkette.com/382485/barack-obama-so-mean-to-reporters
April 22, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
you didn't know?
April 22, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Giordano from the Field says that most voters in PA are well aware of these "sample" ballots and that there is not that much confusion. This is what he says:
I don't know that we need to worry too much about this issue...
The Field is a great blog - Al's done yeoman's work during these primaries!
April 22, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So these two sample ballots were printed by the same people and it's in fact accurate that these are indeed "official" ballots? Thanks for clarifying.
Incidentally I can't seem to find the post you're referring to at the Field. How is it decided who is in the slots under "president" on these "official" ballots? Or are there also varying ballots with the different options for representative etc?
April 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh ... I don't know why The Field site was cut off of my post (where is the preview button???) Anyway, here it is (hopefully):
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/
April 22, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This looks very much like a stealth campaign trick.
Pennsylvania voters are going to be shocked when the find out that their Primary was won by Junior Samples.
April 22, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what sounds fishy though... sounds like they are trying to get Clinton delegates for the convention from people who vote for Obama.
Some of the "Obama only" sample ballots have Clinton delegates for the convention... hmmm???
http://www. philly. com/philly/blogs/politics/Ballot_Bafflement. html
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
Ballot Bafflement
Patrick Kerkstra reports:
The sample ballots circulated by ward leaders in all Philadelphia elections seem to be confusing some voters this time around. These aren't official ballots in any way, just a list of the candidates who've been endorsed by your local Democratic ward leader. In some cases, ward leaders are urging local residents to vote for Obama for president but to choose Clinton representatives to be delegates to the Democratic National Convention. This is just so much insider maneuvering: a ward boss might prefer Obama, but still wants to see a political ally who backs Clinton get the chance to attend the convention. The only vote that counts in the presidential contest is the one at the top of the ballot. Voting for Clinton delegates or Obama delegates won't impact who wins the state.
Muddling the picture still further is the fact that some of these sample ballots appear to be getting distributed in the wrong wards. In other words, you could be getting the recommendations of a ward leader from another part of town.
There's one sure way to cut through the confusion: exercise your own judgment and leave the sample ballot at home.
April 22, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, there should be no confusion.
These are VERY common in Get Out The Vote campaigns...
April 22, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
AT 5PM EDT.... CNN WILL HAVE LIVE EXIT POLL DATA FROM PENNSYLVANIA..... AT 7:45EDT CNN WILL HAVE LIVE VOTE TOTALS COMING IN UNTIL EVERY VOTE IS COUNTED.... I HEARD THIS ON CNN A FEW MINS. AGO, THOUGHT I WOULD SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE.
April 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, thanks for sharing, but did you have to shout? Ouch.
April 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
She thinks we're foreigners, and you know that if you shout at foreigners they will then understand whatever language you are speaking.
April 22, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your spirit and enthusiasm.
These trolls are whining about cheating so have pity on them after this thumpin in PA.
Poor trolls.
April 22, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary can't beat Obama in North Carolina, it proves that she can't close the deal (quite rightly.)
April 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly.
Clinton's problem at this point isn't closing the deal. It's that she has preformed so poorly and shown such a demonstrable lack of leadership that she no longer holds the cards to credibly sit at the table.
April 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly.
Since her campaign is in shambles and broke, it couldn't be more clear.
April 22, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary can not close Bill's Trap, it proves that she has not crossed the Commander in Chief threshold.(Quite Rightly)
April 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Barack Obama does not agree to obliterate something at 3 AM, it will prove that he is not ready to lead on Day One (quite rightly.)
April 22, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The real issues here are:
1) It is unacceptable for machines to go down this frequently during voting, primarily in urban Dem strongholds. Students of Republican strategies for the implementation of public policy know that deregulation, decentralization and blissful incompetence are some of their keys to success.
2) 90% of PA voters use machines that have no paper trail. Not only are there no audits - a recount isn't even possible. Corporations that trend Republican essentially control the voting procedure in this vital swing state (my home state). It's one of the worst states in the nation in this regard.
3) Many problems are coming from the management of voting rolls, which is also increasingly outsourced. Anyone surprised that this might be a problem?
April 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Need a HUGE national outcry before the general election on 2 issues, 1. machines 2. caging.
April 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
exit poll data is know being talked about on cnn
April 22, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
a nice little "primary day" interview with Senator Obama:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-press-availability-at-pittsburgh-diner/
April 22, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
testing...testing
April 22, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink