OT: Did you vote?

Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
"touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
five minutes.

I looked for the "Do you think JMW is a foolish blowhard?" button, but
they weren't accepting votes on that issue.

--
Curt

Curt wrote:
> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> five minutes.
>
> I looked for the "Do you think JMW is a foolish blowhard?" button, but
> they weren't accepting votes on that issue.
>
Voted. Here we moved to paper ballots to accommodate Democrats who are
confused by push buttons. Unfortunately, the paper ballots need to be
scanned after you color in the little circles next to your choices. The
tech is like the SAT.

Anyway, the guy doing the scanning can see how you voted. So much for
secret balloting.

Also the polls ran out of pens to fill out the ballot circles. If you
didn't bring your own pen or couldn't cage one, you couldn't vote in
some places. Other places ran out of parking so people couldn't stop to
vote. At least a few places RAN OUT of paper ballots.

The only thing the D's and R's agree on is that if the other wins, the
only reason is because of cheating.

-paul

Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:

>Curt wrote:
>> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
>> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
>> five minutes.
>>
>> I looked for the "Do you think JMW is a foolish blowhard?" button, but
>> they weren't accepting votes on that issue.
>>
>Voted. Here we moved to paper ballots to accommodate Democrats who are
>confused by push buttons. Unfortunately, the paper ballots need to be
>scanned after you color in the little circles next to your choices. The
>tech is like the SAT.
>
>Anyway, the guy doing the scanning can see how you voted. So much for
>secret balloting.
>
>Also the polls ran out of pens to fill out the ballot circles. If you
>didn't bring your own pen or couldn't cage one, you couldn't vote in
>some places.

Probably all the guys like Curt, stealing them for souvenirs.

Curt wrote:
> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> five minutes.
>
[snip]

I wish it was that painless. Arrived at the polling place at 0615 (I
thought it opened at 0600) found all the poll workers sitting around
drinking coffee. Was told they didn't open until 0630. No problem. Left
to go get a cup of coffee, came back at 0630.

There was a line. They were supposed to open at 0630, but they were
still setting up the voting machines and starting to swear each other
in. One of the reasons for the long line was they couldn't decide if a
military ID was acceptable identification. I finally made it through
the line, but then had to wait for a machine - there were 6, but they
could only get three of them to work. Finally got to vote on a working
machine - that part at least was painless.

After the fiasco that was the 2000 election, one would think that they
would have been better prepared (or was I just being foolishly
optimistic).

As far as people being disenfranchised, etc., I don't think there's any
kind of a conspiracy going on on either side. I think it's a simple
case of incompetence.

Anyway, I voted.

slotman1958@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>Curt wrote:
>> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
>> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
>> five minutes.
>>
>[snip]
>
>I wish it was that painless. Arrived at the polling place at 0615 (I
>thought it opened at 0600) found all the poll workers sitting around
>drinking coffee. Was told they didn't open until 0630. No problem. Left
>to go get a cup of coffee, came back at 0630.
>
>There was a line. They were supposed to open at 0630, but they were
>still setting up the voting machines and starting to swear each other
>in. One of the reasons for the long line was they couldn't decide if a
>military ID was acceptable identification. I finally made it through
>the line, but then had to wait for a machine - there were 6, but they
>could only get three of them to work. Finally got to vote on a working
>machine - that part at least was painless.
>
>After the fiasco that was the 2000 election, one would think that they
>would have been better prepared (or was I just being foolishly
>optimistic).
>
>As far as people being disenfranchised, etc., I don't think there's any
>kind of a conspiracy going on on either side. I think it's a simple
>case of incompetence.
>
>Anyway, I voted.

It's not as though all the local professionals and scholars are lining
up for a chance to work at the election polls. In most places, it's
tough enough to find retirees who are willing to work a 14-hour day at
minimum wage.

In article <1162942778.727096.293670@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> five minutes.

Took us closer to 15 minutes but I actually took time to read the
ballots since there were some propositions to be voted for...

Those machines with the dial thingy on them were rather interesting.

Much better than punch cards!!!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <15OdnRKkFrmOgczYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:

> Curt wrote:
> > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> > five minutes.
> >
> Voted. Here we moved to paper ballots to accommodate Democrats who are
> confused by push buttons. Unfortunately, the paper ballots need to be
> scanned after you color in the little circles next to your choices. The
> tech is like the SAT.
>
> Anyway, the guy doing the scanning can see how you voted. So much for
> secret balloting.
>
> Also the polls ran out of pens to fill out the ballot circles. If you
> didn't bring your own pen or couldn't cage one, you couldn't vote in
> some places. Other places ran out of parking so people couldn't stop to
> vote. At least a few places RAN OUT of paper ballots.
>
> The only thing the D's and R's agree on is that if the other wins, the
> only reason is because of cheating.
>
> -paul

I've heard about the problem of running out of ballots. ;-)
I think that the voter turnout was significantly higher than expected!!!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <v8d2l2tr04naitpp46nt6b7rmcfs3qs0ei@4ax.com>,
JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:
>
> >Curt wrote:
> >> Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> >> "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> >> five minutes.
> >>
> >> I looked for the "Do you think JMW is a foolish blowhard?" button, but
> >> they weren't accepting votes on that issue.
> >>
> >Voted. Here we moved to paper ballots to accommodate Democrats who are
> >confused by push buttons. Unfortunately, the paper ballots need to be
> >scanned after you color in the little circles next to your choices. The
> >tech is like the SAT.
> >
> >Anyway, the guy doing the scanning can see how you voted. So much for
> >secret balloting.
> >
> >Also the polls ran out of pens to fill out the ballot circles. If you
> >didn't bring your own pen or couldn't cage one, you couldn't vote in
> >some places.
>
> Probably all the guys like Curt, stealing them for souvenirs.

<snicker>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
> "Curt" wrote:
>
> > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> > five minutes.
>
> Took us closer to 15 minutes but I actually took time to read the
> ballots since there were some propositions to be voted for...

Five minutes or less, read the ballots, checked the appropriate box on
the referendum calling for borrowing to compensate veterans of the
Persian Gulf War.

"Voters on Tuesday were deciding whether the state should borrow $20
million so that nearly 33,000 Pennsylvania veterans who participated in
the Persian Gulf War could collect one-time payments up to $525." From
the AP

> Those machines with the dial thingy on them were
> rather interesting.

No dial thingy in PA. At least not at the church were I voted.

> Much better than punch cards!!!

I have no preference. Whatever works, of course, is good.

> Peace, Om

--
Curt

slotman1958 wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> > five minutes.
> >
> [snip]
>
> I wish it was that painless. Arrived at the polling place at 0615 (I
> thought it opened at 0600) found all the poll workers sitting around
> drinking coffee. Was told they didn't open until 0630. No problem. Left
> to go get a cup of coffee, came back at 0630.
>
> There was a line. They were supposed to open at 0630, but they were
> still setting up the voting machines and starting to swear each other
> in. One of the reasons for the long line was they couldn't decide if a
> military ID was acceptable identification.

That's absurd. A military ID has your photo on it last I had one in my
wallet. I wish they'd turn me away with my military ID!

You were in good company, though, apparently as Missouri's chief
elections official was asked for photo ID despite a court ruling
striking down the requirement.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who had opposed
Republican efforts to mandate a photo ID in Missouri, "said that a
worker at the St. Louis Election Board asked her three times to show
photo ID when she went to cast an absentee ballot Friday.

Carnahan said that she tried to explain a photo ID was not necessary,
but that the election worker replied that she was instructed to ask for
one anyway.

(HEY, CARNAHAN, IT'S NOT CALLED THE "SHOW ME" STATE FER NUTHIN!!!!!)

Carnahan said she eventually was allowed to vote without displaying a
photo identification." See:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061107/...identification

> I finally made it through the line, but then had to wait for a machine -
> there were 6, but they could only get three of them to work.

They held elections all day at the elementary school. I heard the one
poll worker on the phone saying something like, "If they had come to
repair the machine would I be calling you to come and repair it???!"

They had four machines and apparently two of them weren't working at
one time during the day.

> Finally got to vote on a working machine - that part at least was painless.
>
> After the fiasco that was the 2000 election, one would think that they
> would have been better prepared (or was I just being foolishly
> optimistic).

Hey, no offense, but, yes, I'll go with a) foolishly optimistic.

> As far as people being disenfranchised, etc., I don't think there's any
> kind of a conspiracy going on on either side. I think it's a simple
> case of incompetence.
>
> Anyway, I voted.

Good on you.

--
Curt

In article <1162957495.125000.100820@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > "Curt" wrote:
> >
> > > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
> > > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
> > > five minutes.
> >
> > Took us closer to 15 minutes but I actually took time to read the
> > ballots since there were some propositions to be voted for...
>
> Five minutes or less, read the ballots, checked the appropriate box on
> the referendum calling for borrowing to compensate veterans of the
> Persian Gulf War.
>
> "Voters on Tuesday were deciding whether the state should borrow $20
> million so that nearly 33,000 Pennsylvania veterans who participated in
> the Persian Gulf War could collect one-time payments up to $525." From
> the AP
>
> > Those machines with the dial thingy on them were
> > rather interesting.
>
> No dial thingy in PA. At least not at the church were I voted.
>
> > Much better than punch cards!!!
>
> I have no preference. Whatever works, of course, is good.
>
> > Peace, Om

I do think that electronic voting is more efficient...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On 7 Nov 2006 20:05:11 -0800, "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>slotman1958 wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>> > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
>> > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
>> > five minutes.
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> I wish it was that painless. Arrived at the polling place at 0615 (I
>> thought it opened at 0600) found all the poll workers sitting around
>> drinking coffee. Was told they didn't open until 0630. No problem. Left
>> to go get a cup of coffee, came back at 0630.
>>
>> There was a line. They were supposed to open at 0630, but they were
>> still setting up the voting machines and starting to swear each other
>> in. One of the reasons for the long line was they couldn't decide if a
>> military ID was acceptable identification.
>
>That's absurd. A military ID has your photo on it last I had one in my
>wallet. I wish they'd turn me away with my military ID!
>
>You were in good company, though, apparently as Missouri's chief
>elections official was asked for photo ID despite a court ruling
>striking down the requirement.
>
>Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who had opposed
>Republican efforts to mandate a photo ID in Missouri, "said that a
>worker at the St. Louis Election Board asked her three times to show
>photo ID when she went to cast an absentee ballot Friday.

Why would you go to the *polling place* to cast an *absentee* ballot?

This is a definition of "absentee" with which I was previously unfamiliar.


>> As far as people being disenfranchised, etc., I don't think there's any
>> kind of a conspiracy going on on either side. I think it's a simple
>> case of incompetence.

It's funny how Dems obsess about Diebold being owned by a Republican
yet are utterly concerned that Sequoia Systems is owned by a COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT.

On 7 Nov 2006 19:44:55 -0800, "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>Omelet wrote:
>> "Curt" wrote:
>>
>> > Well, that was painless. And quick. Including the instruction on the
>> > "touch" voting procedure, time in the building must have been less than
>> > five minutes.
>>
>> Took us closer to 15 minutes but I actually took time to read the
>> ballots since there were some propositions to be voted for...
>
>Five minutes or less, read the ballots, checked the appropriate box on
>the referendum calling for borrowing to compensate veterans of the
>Persian Gulf War.

Love the geniuses who design the voting software here.

For one race, I only voted for one candidate for a "Select no more than two"
school board race (because I only liked one of the candidates, duh)... the "error check"
at the end forced me back to that entry, then made me navigate page-by-page all
the way to the end in order to cast my vote. It's not a f*cking
multiple-choice-no-penalty-for-guessing test, you idjits.

Lucas Buck wrote:

re

> >Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who had opposed
> >Republican efforts to mandate a photo ID in Missouri, "said that a
> >worker at the St. Louis Election Board asked her three times to show
> >photo ID when she went to cast an absentee ballot Friday.
>
> Why would you go to the *polling place* to cast an *absentee* ballot?

HA! That's a good question. And, yeah, one for which I have no answer
and am not inclined to Google one out.

Great catch, though.

> This is a definition of "absentee" with which I was previously unfamiliar.

[...]

> It's funny how Dems obsess about Diebold being owned by a Republican
> yet are utterly concerned that Sequoia Systems is owned by a COMMUNIST
> GOVERNMENT.

Really? That's worth a laugh, too.

November's humor award awaits!

October's? I'm leaning toward my bestestest gal pal's offering of "ALGE
bra versus SPORTS bra," but was hoping the Humour Committee would lift
the ban before I made the announcement.

--
Curt

On 8 Nov 2006 16:25:00 -0800, "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>> It's funny how Dems obsess about Diebold being owned by a Republican
>> yet are utterly concerned that Sequoia Systems is owned by a COMMUNIST
>> GOVERNMENT.
>
>Really? That's worth a laugh, too.

Yup - Hugo Chavez & Co.