|
I am surprised to report that the EAC staff appeared genuinely interested in finding way to decrease the amount of provisional ballots cast, as well as increase the acceptance rate of those cast. They came down hard on Blackwell, who had the audacity to state" Ohio could stand as a model for other states". Michael Vu, Director of the Cuyahoga County BOE, disputed Balckwell's claims, stating that his last minute directives lead to confusion and were contrary to HAVA. The provisional ballot acceptance rate for OH was 77%, although dem strongholds such as Cuyahoga had only a 66% acceptance rate. Mr. Vu stated the Blackwell directives were different than those used in the 2004 primary, causing further confusion. He stated the untimely mandates caused Ohio NOT to be a model. (Mr Vu was the only panelist that was applauded) The commissioners also came down hard on Blackwell. Like others in his party, Blackwell evaded the questions put forth, and gave unnecessary diatribes on the history of PVs in Ohio. He spoke of the need to prevent voter fraud. He appeared foolish compared to the other panelist, Glenda Hood, Rebecca Vigil-Giron (NM), Vu and Cherie Poucher Wake County NC. The others pressed for the need for clarification of codifaction, pollworker training, follow-up mechanism for those who cast pvs, and how to diminish the use (preventative measures). Also brought out was how some states allow county wide acceptance, and follow-up mechanism to turn a pv into a regular vote."
I think it would behoove election reform advocates to contact the EAC, and attempt to work with them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
