
A Report on the Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries - DamienSF
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5O9I4XJdSISNzJyaWIxaWpZWnM/view
======
dang
This story was flagged by users, no doubt because politics are mostly off-
topic here and flamewars, which inflammatory topics predictably produce, are
the worst.

However, more than one user emailed to plead the case for the article, arguing
that it is substantive and pointing out that the discussion has so far mostly
remained civil (a small miracle in relative terms), so we'll try turning the
flags off on this one.

If the thread gets nasty we'll have to turn them back on, so if you add a
comment here, please ensure that it is extra civil and substantive.

------
vannevar
I think the most interesting (and perhaps hopeful) aspect here is that people
now have an _expectation_ of fairness in the selection of party candidates.
That's a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, I think people widely assumed
that the party was biased towards individual candidates. Even now, that's
clearly the case when the sitting President is a candidate. I personally think
that expecting an unbiased party structure is unrealistic, given the very
nature of the organization. The party doesn't have a product, other than its
opinion. The idea that an organization of partisans only arrives at that
collective opinion through primaries and caucuses seems quite naive to me.

~~~
brudgers
To me there is an unquestioned premise to the article: why should the state
[as in "government"] conduct elections on behalf of political parties.
Enrolling voters as Democrat or Republican or whatever and then restricting
the voter's access to ballot items based upon that enrollment [or non-
enrollment] does not seem to be the business of the government.

A political party is free to change the rules for nominating candidates
however and whenever it chooses. It is free to nullify the decision of those
voting in a particular primary. A political party is free to nominate whomever
it chooses [and almost certainly multiple candidates for the same office it
wishes should it choose].

Ultimately the party, not a judge, chooses whose vote matters and whose
doesn't. Placing the imprimatur of the state upon a political party's process
doesn't change that or make the process of candidate nomination little 'd'
democratic. The people within a political party charged with making the rules
for candidate selection are not elected or selected little 'd' democratically.
The process of nominating candidates is not little 'd' democratic in any
meaningful sense.

~~~
maxerickson
_A political party is free to change the rules for nominating candidates
however and whenever it chooses._

This is something we should take away from them. The outcomes of private party
activities shouldn't have any impact on the names that appear on ballots. They
can maybe mark the names they choose to endorse as an organization, but we
should throw away the system where the parties are directly involved in
putting names on the ballot (of course they'd be indirectly involved, as an
organized group is, uh, organized and thus more ready to act together, so
would have an easy time dealing with ballot petitions).

~~~
white-flame
There are many barriers to entry to get a name on the ballot, and political
parties will rally together to help jump through those hoops to get specific
names on. If there were lower barriers to entry, the ballots would be flooded.

I think the barriers to entry should likely remain high, but we need an
overhaul of the voting system itself to break the two-party system, which
itself is just a side-effect of the mechanics of our voting process, not
anything mandated.

If I remember correctly, early on in the country's history the founders
noticed that the mechanics of voting were trending towards a limited two-party
system, and that consternated them. Most every (if not actually every)
democracy established after the USA has a voting style and representative
bodies that allows more parties to coexist, or creative destruction within the
set of active parties to thrive.

~~~
maxerickson
Why is having lots of names on the ballot a bad thing?

I'd rather have some system of arbitrarily limiting the number of names on the
ballot than a system that privileges parties. For instance, for statewide
elections you could choose the 5 (or 10!) names that had satisfied the ballot
requirements in the most voting districts (so it doesn't matter that Uncle
Larry likes to "run" for state senate in his home county, he doesn't kick
someone with a better/actual shot at winning off).

~~~
madgar
There are 1,862 candidates for President right now [0]. The 5 or 10 candidates
you will see on the ballot in your statewide election for President are those
that have satisfied the ballot requirements in the state.

It turns out that satisfying the ballot requirements is already a challenge
requiring organization, and that organization is called a political party.

[0]
[http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do](http://www.fec.gov/data/CandidateSummary.do)

~~~
maxerickson
Yes, but in many jurisdictions the rules are simpler for the parties than for
some rando. That's my objection. The rando shouldn't have a higher bar than
the established organization, they should have the same bar. Partly for the
reason you highlight, backing of a party already makes it significantly more
likely that someone will succeed in getting on many ballots.

~~~
jessedhillon
What problem is lowering the barrier to entry for the balloting process
solving? If someone has broad and genuine support, they will be able to either
apply their own resources or raise funds to completing the paperwork necessary
to get on the ballot. Party-supported or not, registration is a relatively
small investment of time, compared to what it will take to mount a successful
campaign.

The public has a vested interest in having a ballot present only those
candidates who can demonstrate a minimum-level of popular support. Otherwise
why have a qualification process at all -- we can give voters phonebooks to
take with them into the booth, and they can find the name of whichever citizen
they feel should be elected.

~~~
snowwrestler
Every carve-out or differential treatment for established political parties is
a barrier to the establishment of new political parties.

So the political parties have become these weird, permanent, pseudo-
governmental entities that no longer have consistent identities of their own,
but are basically available for capture every 4 years.

That's how you get the "Republican Party platform" doing a full reversal on
trade policy, international policy, health care, and a dozen other issues
between 2012 and now.

The "Republican Party" today is just a shell--a collection of structural
advantages that the Trump folks have won the the right to put on like a
costume. Same with the Democratic party--Sanders just failed to win the
costume.

What we need, is to regularly reset the requirements for political
organizations, so that it's just as easy for new candidates to be supported by
new organizations, as old parties.

------
wjnc
I think this story does not need to be flagged, but could benefit from a very
constrained discussion ('self-censoring') to not let personal political
opinions take over the discussion. I'll try.

Is this a direction more modern, western democracies seem to be heading? I
feel a loss of democratic appeal and subsequent machinations of all kinds by
apparatuses of state to keep in power. Democratic in name, but the number of
options available to the public limited to what is in line with what public
officials think of as good sense.

Examples:

-DNC machinating to get Clinton elected as candidate. The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.

-The unpopular and undemocratic European Union. Examples abound. The best being the EU-constitution: struck down in popular referendums, flown in as a treaty.

-In my country, the Netherlands, a referendum in which the public voted against an EU-agreement with Ukraine (wholy within law, with very obvious machinations by state and political parties), on which both the government and EU reneged

Counter example:

-Brexit

Disclaimers

-Please, don't hit on the 'red herrings' (if any), like 'undemocratic EU'. I see it as both a fact (imho, populus does not recognize European parliament) and an opinion (mostly in the more populist parties over Europe). Not center to my view of democracies limiting decision power of the populus. -The 'public officials' need not be those paid by the state. But more broadly: those aspiring to have their organisations have a say over public policy.

~~~
patrickk
Since you are Dutch, here's a wonderful act of public service done by your
countrymen, getting voting machines to play chess:
[http://hackaday.com/2006/10/06/voting-machine-
chess/](http://hackaday.com/2006/10/06/voting-machine-chess/)

My country, Ireland, briefly flirted with the idea of voting machines areound
the same time, and decided to scrap them at enormous expense and go back to
paper ballots: [http://www.irishtimes.com/news/opposition-condemns-e-
voting-...](http://www.irishtimes.com/news/opposition-condemns-e-voting-
shambles-1.839481)

> The public needed Russia (!) for a fresh dosis of unpopular truths about
> those machinations. This documents more evidence on machinations.

I'm not convinced the "Russian hackers" angle is correct, it seems like a
convenient cover story for the DNC, to draw a distinction between Hillary and
Trump with regard to Putin. They know many older voters don't understand this
stuff (no offense to older HN readers!) and will likely buy it. It's just like
the North Korean hackers story for the Sony hack. It could just as easily have
been disgruntled DNC insiders, and Wikileaks is happy to have the real source
of the leak disguised.

~~~
m_mueller
Why assume 'disgruntled' insiders when the established forces are the ones
profiting from the hack? Or are you saying that they did it because Sanders
would never have gotten through national convention anyways, but they could
hurt Hillary by blackening her?

~~~
patrickk
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying it's a possibility. The Russian hacker
story just seems bizarre and made up, just like the Sony North Korea story.

Here's an interview with Julian Assange when asked about the source of the
leaks, with direct quotes from Clinton's campaign manager, quoting unnamed
experts:
[https://youtu.be/axuJfX3cO9Q?t=12m50s](https://youtu.be/axuJfX3cO9Q?t=12m50s)

 _" On Sunday morning, the issue erupted, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager,
Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the
Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump” citing “experts” but
offering no other evidence."_

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-
trump-r...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-
emails.html)

I mean anyone can quote anonymous "experts" to craft a narrative. Doesn't make
it true.

~~~
m_mueller
My point is, at some point you have to assume that the easiest way of all this
happening is that either DNC or Hillary's staff is rotten from the top. At
this point it seems to be a pattern to me.

------
tunesmith
Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of
irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result?

I haven't read the entire document yet but have sampled a couple of parts. The
exit polls section, by the way, is irresponsibly flawed.

It's _well-known_ that the primary purpose of exit polls in the US is not to
audit elections. It's not even to project winners. It's to update demographic
models. It's well-known that using the vote count to update an exit poll's
model is normal and expected practice, and not evidence of conspiracy. Yes,
there have been cases where exit poll divergence has been used as evidence to
point out likely fraud. But that only happens when the divergence reaches a
certain level, and - this is more key - this determination is made by the exit
poll organizations themselves.

Here, in order to believe that exit polling shows evidence of fraud, you'd
have to not only believe that the exit poll divergence does not have simpler,
alternative explanations, and that the level of divergence goes beyond a
reasonable range, but that our exit poll organization - a non-partisan
coalition of several different independent news organizations - was aware of
it and unanimously chose to suppress the information. This is tinfoil hat
territory.

I call it irresponsible because the point of view advanced in this report is
willfully ignorant of how exit polls even work.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/04/22/ho...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2016/04/22/how-exit-polls-work-explained/)

~~~
seizethecheese
> Is there convincing evidence in this document that the amount of
> irregularities were actually sufficient to change the result?

If an athlete is caught doping, do we question whether they would have won
anyway?

~~~
nkurz
In athletics, usually not. But perhaps surprisingly, in the American legal
system, yes! The relevant question actually is whether "they would have won
anyway".

The standard is that if the prosecution intentionally "cheats" and obtains a
conviction through unconstitutional means, the conviction cannot be appealed
unless it can be shown that there was a "reasonable probability" that the
verdict would have been different without the violation of rights. Worse, in
our adversarial system, prosecutors are essentially obligated to argue that
any misconduct had no effect. One might even conclude that they are "obligated
to cheat".

Ken White, a former prosecutor and legal blogger at Popehat has an excellent
explanation of this in his recent piece "Confessions of an Ex-Prosecutor". I'm
tempted to just quote entire sections from it, but perhaps better just to link
to it. If pressed for time, start with the section "Prosecutors Are Duty-Bound
to Argue That Rights Don't Matter":
[http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-
ex-p...](http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/confessions-of-an-ex-
prosecutor/print)

So, while your point is excellent, one might ask whether our voting system
should be more like an athletic contest, or a legal proceeding? And if the
answer is "like an athletic contest", what does that say about our legal
system?

~~~
dak1
From a layman's perspective, it certainly sounds like the legal system needs
to be changed, not replicated.

------
forbes
Does any other country have a 'primary' system like the US? In Australia there
is no pretending to elect candidates for each party. In our recent election we
had two choices for PM from the major parties, chosen by the parties
themselves.

In the US you spent a year choosing your candidates, but behind closed doors
one of those parties spent all their time trying to push one candidate whilst
the other party spent all their time trying to stop another.

The Australian system seems a little more honest, even though the roles of PM
and President are quite different. We can elect a PM and the party can then
choose to throw them out the week after. This happens frequently.

~~~
snowwrestler
The U.S., as a system of government, does not actually have a primary system.
See if you can find it in the U.S. Constitution--I'll wait while you look.

> In our recent election we had two choices for PM from the major parties,
> chosen by the parties themselves.

This is what the U.S. has as well. The Democratic "primary" is a private
process that is not required by the Constitution or federal law. It is set up
and run by private citizens for the benefit of private citizens. It is how the
Democratic party chooses its candidate, and it works however the Democratic
party says it should work.

Participating in a primary is not like participating in a general election.
There is no federal right to be considered for the Democratic candidate for
president. There is no federal law that says the Democratic National Committee
staff has to provide equitable treatment to any particular candidate or
campaign. There is not even a federal requirement that a citizen be permitted
to cast a vote at all in a primary.

I am hopeful that one of the results of all this hysteria and lawsuits right
now is that the courts will help make that clear to people.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
They don't have to participate in state-run primary elections, but if they
choose to, they are not allowed to commit election fraud. Primary elections
are still elections.

Of course, they don't have to provide equitable treatment to candidates in
other ways.

~~~
snowwrestler
How is a primary similar to a general election? No one is elected to anything
in a primary. A primary results only in an advisory signal to a party
nominating process, which is privately run. We just saw the Democratic one
conclude tonight.

What is the state or federal government interest in how a private organization
chooses to endorse a slate of candidates? Will we see lawsuits and government
regulations over how the Sierra Club or NRA choose to endorse candidates? Will
we see state officials stepping in to run or monitor caucuses or conventions
if the state party decides to do that instead of a primary?

Just because a party primary has the same mechanics as a general election,
that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same legal status--or that it should.
In fact it's arguable that spending state resources to help a group of private
citizens decide who to endorse is an example of straight-up corruption and
waste of taxpayer money.

------
alexandercrohde
I think this report is excellent. Even for those who don't believe the
statistical evidence it provides is conclusive in this case, I think no
reasonable person could disagree with the improvements it suggests:

Quoting from page 8:

1) Exclusive use of hand-counted paper ballots in all future US elections.

2) Automatic voter registration with same-day party affiliation switching as a
mandatory condition for all elections that are publicly funded.

3) Restoration of voting rights legislation which would ensure adequate access
to polling sites.

~~~
WillPostForFood
Reasonable people can oppose same day automatic voter registration if it comes
without proper fraud prevention.

Everyone should support adequate access to polling sites, but also understand
that there is a level of free access that has in the past allowed and
encouraged fraud. I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an
ID is a reasonable requirement for voting.

~~~
cwmma
> I think no reasonable person could disagree that showing an ID is a
> reasonable requirement for voting.

Ok here is some reasonable disagreement

Voter impersonation is a very rare type of fraud [0] and ID laws tend to make
it hard for some but not all voters to vote [1] meaning they don't prevent
fraud, they just prevent democrat votes.

0\.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-
investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-
billion-ballots-cast/) 1\.
[http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measurin...](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/measuring-
the-effects-of-voter-identification-laws/)

------
aorth
Damning. Another report from April, 2016 about fraud in the Democratic
primaries favoring Hillary Clinton.

[https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-
elect...](https://medium.com/@spencergundert/hillary-clinton-and-electoral-
fraud-992ad9e080f6#.51i8q11bq)

------
unabst
The only question we should be asking is this. Why do some votes count more
than others? The fact that there are delegates, let alone super delegates, is
damning. You should always question someone claiming they will "represent"
you.

Democracy at its best does not need any systems or hierarchies or even
parties. It needs people, all equal, to all vote, and to all be counted.
That's it.

I for one am all for mandatory voting, and a mandatory voting national
holiday. Those who don't want to vote can vote "null" in protest. And they
will feel their voice was heard because it will be. That would be a true
democracy and a holiday America would be proud of.

~~~
jessedhillon
Your claim that direct, popular democracy is the most desirable form is not
obvious, and needs to be substantiated.

~~~
unabst
If democracy is about every American having an equal say, and if our vote is
that voice, then there should be nothing standing between an individual and
their vote.

There is nothing that can be placed in between you and your voice that will
add to what you will say. No system, no bureaucracy, no process, no delegate,
nothing. This is a fundamental virtue of communication. Imagine if anything
stood between you and the submit button you used to respond? Even if you had
to tell someone first who then had to tell me, the message could be tainted. A
man-in-the-middle is inherently insecure, whether it's actually a man or
anything else. Just my keyboard will give me typos.

~~~
jessedhillon
I think you are reiterating your claims without demonstrating why these things
are true. There are a wide number of issue which require a deep level of
research and experience to consider.

It's unfeasible to educate all 150M+ voters to the level where we can be
confident their opinion on the question is informed. Absent that, their votes
will only measure how the question feels with respect to gut-instinct and
common "wisdom". Moreover, it would be a waste of time to have 300M (we need
to teach the children too) people all be educated on the minutiae of every
public policy. The field of public policy is an actual discipline precisely
because it is something that people need to specialize in.

Given questions like,

\- what range of broadcasting frequencies should be set aside for public use?

\- what should the maximum allowable individual gross income be before one
should be required to pay AMT if it exceeds AGI; what about jointly-filing
couples?

\- what should the agricultural subsidy be for soy and grain farmers?

how do you think the average person is supposed to decide these things?

~~~
unabst
> how do you think the average person

You're saying not all votes are equal, and that idiots shouldn't get to vote.
This violates a basic tenet of democracy. The next step would be to not allow
them to speak, because they will contaminate the minds of our good voters. Or
better yet, kill them. That's censorship, and genocide, and precisely how they
occur even today.

The moment we decide we need to determine who is good enough, we start
comparing people. This opens the floodgates of racism, sexism, ageism,
elitism, and every -ism under the stars. Democrats will discriminate
republicans, and Bloods will discriminate Crips. You of course are free to
argue you are none of these things, but now you're saying you're above these
people, and so you've just joined the discrimination.

Who is to judge anyone but ourselves?

If democracy is about equal voice, then all these comparisons between people
become moot. This is how democracy transcends what any of us think of each
other, and that's the beauty of it. And that's why it's better than anything
else we've come up with so far.

Granted all of our votes are equal, you are free to attempt to educate the
150M+ voter pool if you so desire. This is what you are free to do, and
encouraged to do. Go out and solve the problems you envision, so long as you
don't alter our democracy as part of your solution.

That is why the only issue in implementing a true democracy is with the
logistics of accounting for our voices. And anything that gets in the way, be
it requiring IDs, or delegates, or electoral votes, or districts... all become
hindrances to democracy. But the moment anyone tries to manipulate votes,
these are the devices they have. This is how they get in between us and our
vote. And that is why there is so much of it. It works! People, like you mind
you, who have ideas about "how" votes should be counted decide to muck with
democracy, and to their credit, they have been successful.

Setting all this aside, what you are advocating is to have a more educated
voter pool, which doesn't seem like a bad idea. Backing votes with more
brainpower clearly will dictate decisions to be smarter. You will be able to
back this statement with evidence, because it is true.

The problem is not with the statement or the desire to design a better
democracy. The problem is with everything else. And with all things
considered, "equal voice + freedom of speech - violence" still seems like the
best equation.

Speak not to change the system but to change people's minds. This already
works in America. I can't even name where it works anywhere else. The system
is still broken, but only because we don't need 99% of it (and by system I
mean voting, not government).

~~~
dragonwriter
> You're saying not all votes are equal, and that idiots shouldn't get to
> vote.

How about if you respond to what the GP _actually_ said instead of making up
things that they didn't say? It seems to me that what they actually said is
that "representative democracy works better for the real people in the real
world -- a large percentage of whose time, on average, is and, for maximum
personal and social benefit must be, spent on non-public-policy pursuits --
than direct democracy in which every public policy question was directly
submitted to the citizenry.

There may be good counterarguments against what was actually said, but the
strawman you set up, and the arguments you deploy against that strawman, are
not among them.

~~~
unabst
You're citing what (you think) he said about policy, which is what was off-
topic. I was only talking about voting, so I only responded in terms of
voting. Not sure why I'm the one being accused of swapping issues here or why
you find it worth accusing anyone if you care to add to the discussion, feel
free.

------
selectron
Hand counting of votes seems like a no-brainer, regardless of whether there
was a conspiracy this election.

~~~
DamienSF
Agree, we have to make hand counting possible in the first place.

------
20tibbygt06
Election Justice USA reporting their site is under attack since reporting
their findings. [0]

[0][https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536](https://twitter.com/Elect_Justice/status/758376021674561536)

At this time, I'm still unable to reach their site.

------
protomyth
I found this election cycle interesting from the point of view of a true
outsider versus the party ruling clique. It seemed to me the big difference in
outcomes was the amount of work done at the grassroots level in previous
elections. The party who has had their ruling clique challenged for multiple
election cycles had an outsider nominated, as opposed to where the party
leadership was much more able to deal with insurgents.

------
archgoon
So why didn't any of this conspiracy to rig Diebold machines get referenced in
the 20,000 leaked emails?

~~~
imglorp
The last guy that talked about rigged Diebold machines died in a plane crash
before testifying. That one should have been investigated just as vigorously
as this time.

[http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_special...](http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/22/republican_it_specialist_dies_in_plane)

------
rubberstamp
Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig Makes 15-Minute Case That U.S. Is Nowhere
Near A True Democracy.

[https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-
democracy/](https://collegetimes.co/larry-lessig-american-democracy/)

------
nkurz
Since I haven't written it elsewhere, I'll write up my recent voting
experience here. I'm registered as a "No Party Preference" (NPP) vote-by-mail
voter living in Contra Costa County, California. As an non-partisan ballot,
(logically) that ballot did not include the ability to vote in any
presidential primary. But the rules of some parties in California (Democratic,
Green, and Libertarian) allow you to vote in their primary as an NPP voter if
you exchange your NPP ballot for a "crossover" ballot.

Shortly before the primary election, the California Secretary of State issued
a clarifying statement about how the process worked for NPP voters. It
included these options for NPP voters who wanted to vote in a primary:

    
    
      Contact your county elections office no later than May 31
      to request a [party specific] vote-by-mail ballot... OR
    
      Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to an early voting location
      or the polls on Election Day and exchange it for a ballot 
      with presidential candidates
    
      NOTE: If you have lost your original vote-by-mail ballot,
      you will have to vote a provisional ballot at the polls—your 
      vote will still be counted.  
    

[http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-
advis...](http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-
advisories/2016-news-releases-and-advisories/tips-no-party-preference-
voters1/)

Since I was planning to vote in person anyway, and since I wanted to vote in
the Democratic primary, I decided to bring my valid vote-by-mail ballot with
me to exchange for a standard non-provisional Democratic party ballot at my
assigned polling place.

When I got there (the lobby of the local Catholic church), I waited (briefly)
in line, presented my mail-in ballot, and was told that exchanges for
Democratic ballots were not being allowed. I mentioned the Secretary of States
memo, and was (politely) told by the volunteer at the desk that they they knew
nothing of this, and had been instructed that only provisional ballots were to
be given.

Not wanting to hold other people up, and not wanting to accept a provisional
ballot that would not show up in the end-of-day count, I left my place in
line, went outside, and researched my options on my cell phone.

I discovered that indeed, Contra Costa County historically has had a policy of
not exchanging mail in NPP ballots for "real" partisan ballots, that the
Secretary of State's memo was part of the attempt to make clear that this was
against state law, and that the day before the election the County had
begrudgingly agreed to temporarily change its policy:

    
    
      After hearing reports of Contra Costa County’s practice,
      the Secretary of State’s Office contacted local elections
      officials. On Monday, they announced they would change
      their practice and offer these voters replacement ballots.
    

[http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-
at-o...](http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/06/07/contra-costa-county-at-odds-with-
state-over-mail-in-ballot-exchange/)

But apparently no one had told the volunteers working at the polls!

So seeing no way to solve this on my own, I went though the line again, and
accepted a Democratic "provisional" ballot. I was told that I needed to take
the "provisional voting class", and directed to a table with 4 or 5 confused
people already seated at it. A few minutes later, another volunteer (elderly,
bewildered, apparently having a very hard day) tried unsuccessfully to give us
instructions on how to fill out the form on which we were to affirm our
identity, electoral status, and reason for requesting a provisional ballot.

Then the volunteer left, and we filled out the forms as best we could. The
process was sufficiently confusing that one of the voters gave up and left.
After 5 minutes, the volunteer returned, and then mentioned that I wasn't
supposed to have filled out the line that said "Reason for requesting
provisional ballot", crossed out my complicated answer.

He then went to fetch the actual ballots for us. Most of us filled them out at
the table, although I think one person went to a voting booth to do so. A
second person gave up at this time. Or maybe they hadn't understood that they
were supposed to sign and seal the envelope and drop it in the box on the way
out? Or maybe they had to go to the bathroom and planned to return.

Eventually, the volunteer returned and I was told I was told to tear off the
"receipt" from the provisional ballot and drop the ballot itself in an
official looking bag next to the exit. The instructions on the receipt said
that after 30 days, I could check online or by phone to see whether my ballot
was accepted.

I came home, and immediately filled out and faxed a Voter Complaint form,
which I hoped the State would be sympathetic too as the County was directly
disobeying their directives and failing to uphold their agreement:
[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-
informa...](http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/additional-elections-
information/voter-complaint/)

I never heard back any followup from the complaint. I've checked online
several times, but 45 days later it still shows up as "No ballot found".
That's right, so far as I can tell my vote was neither counted nor rejected,
just lost. I might try phoning or going in person to see if I can learn more,
but at this point I feel it's a lost cause.

Edit: I should point out that I don't blame the volunteers --- they were
poorly trained, and doing as they are told. But why are we relying on poorly
trained volunteers for our elections? I do blame the County, since they failed
to follow through on their pledge to the State and the press, but assume this
is mostly poor communication rather than any specific ill-intent.

~~~
elthran
> I'm registered as a "No Party Preference" (NPP) vote-by-mail

Could you explain this to a Brit? I'm interpreting your statement as when you
register to vote that you have to indicate which party you prefer - is this
really true?

If so, are you allowed to vote for the other party?

~~~
DamienSF
American voters have the possibility to register as Democrat, Republican,
Green, another party of their choice or none (NPP). Depending on the voter's
State and which party he intends to support during the primary process, the
voter may or may not be required to be registered under a specific party
preference in order to vote during the primary.

For example, the Democratic New York primary is a closed primary which means
only voters registered as Democrats have the right to vote. However, the
Democratic Californian primary is an open primary which allows voters
registered as Democrats or as NPP to vote.

Voters can change their party preference at any time but they may be required
to be registered under a specific party for a certain period of time in order
to be given the right to vote in some States. For instance, in order to vote
in New York you needed to be a registered Democrat for the past 6 months prior
to the election date. This is a disadvantage to candidates who are well
supported by independent voters (NPP) as many of them did not change their
registration on time. That said, these rules are those of the party and while
they can be considered unfair, this doesn't qualify for election fraud.

An election fraud tactic the report mentions is "registration tampering" which
consists in switching the registration of voters without their consent and
knowledge in order to suppress their right to vote. There have been numerous
reports of registration tampering across most States with voters being
switched from Democrats to Republicans or from Democrats to NPP and so on.
Registrations seem to have been switch electronically (change in the database)
some even involving forged signatures.

~~~
mikeash
Note that registering as a particular party depends on the state, and not all
of them do it. Here in Virginia, for example, there isn't even an option to
indicate party preference.

------
natelaporte
This is unacceptable. How can you be proud of cheating to win?

~~~
pnut
My view of this is evolving, particularly in the context of a Presidential
election.

There is zero fair play at that level of politics, and if you have been
coddled on your path to that chair in any way, including expectations of the
orderly and fair appraisal of the absolute merits of your platform, you are
unprepared.

I'm saying that Clinton, with all her party machinations, is proving that she
understands and has controls over real levers of power, which in turn,
suggests she is capable of operating at the level required for that position.

Sanders came in expecting a fair fight, and that's completely unrealistic,
naive, little league politics. If you can't survive your party's nominating
process, whatever that is, you are a light snack for the players at that
level.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Sanders came in expecting a fair fight

There are two senses of "expect", one about _factual_ expectations (what you
think will happen) and one about _moral_ expectations (what you think _should_
happen). There is plenty of efforts from Sanders efforts to impose
accountability from very early on for variously ways the DNC seemed to be
putting its finger on the scale that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the
second sense, and was prepared to fight to make the fight as fair as possible.

There's zero evidence I can see that Sanders "expected" a fair fight in the
_first_ sense, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

------
boneheadmed
Perhaps the Russians were involved.LOL!
[http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b02...](http://blogosqarteam.typepad.com/.a/6a0148c7b55aa3970c019b028bfea0970d-pi)

------
isuckatcoding
Not to sound like a conspiracy nut but this just reinforces the idea of a
corrupt (if not idiotic) US voting/election system.

~~~
m_mueller
> Not to sound like a conspiracy nut

The fact that you have to state that after being given this whole bunch of
good evidence is a big part of the problem.

~~~
isuckatcoding
Well the way the America is currently going, I am not sure any amount of good
factual evidence will matter.

I think John Oliver described it best in his video a couple of days back.
People seem to be motivated by feelings, not facts.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I)

~~~
pdkl95
> motivated by feelings

While it was written for the creationism/evolution argument, this[1] article
is one of the better descriptions of this mode of thought.

While the typical HN reader uses language to convey _ideas_ , to the
creationist or the RNC attendees on John Oliver's show language instead is
used first for phatic expression and social hierarchy. This is a language
barrier; one side argues facts, while the other side defers to authority and
feelings. Before any real communication can happen between the two sides, you
first have to solve the language barrier.

[1] [http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-
resi...](http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/05/31/more-than-just-resistance-
of-s/)

~~~
Grishnakh
Exactly. Another example of this was that debate a while ago between Ken Ham
and Bill Nye the science guy, about evolution vs. creationism. No one actually
"won" the debate; both sides claimed their guy won, because they were both
speaking different languages. Nye spoke the language of science and everyone
who has a scientific viewpoint of the world thought he won, whereas Ham spoke
the language of fundamentalist religion and everyone who has that viewpoint
thought he won.

------
Kinnard
How exactly does the flagging work?

~~~
dang
I've detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595)
and marked it off-topic so as not to distract from the thread.

The way flagging works is that users click the 'flag' link that appears after
the timestamp underneath a story title. A user needs a small amount of karma
(31 or more) before such links appear. Flags have a number of effects, one of
which is to downweight a story so that it is more likely to fall in rank. If
there are enough flags on a story, the software will eventually kill it (close
it to new comments and hide it from users except those with 'showdead' set to
'yes' in their profile).

The purpose of flagging is to indicate that a story does not belong on HN.
Frivolous flagging—e.g. flagging a story that's clearly on-topic by the site
guidelines just because one personally dislikes it—eventually gets an
account's flagging privileges taken away. But there's a new 'hide' link for
people to click if they'd just like not to see a story.

Flagging of comments is important, too. If you see a comment that breaks the
HN guidelines, such as by being uncivil, you should flag it. But there's one
extra hoop to jump through in the comment case: you have to click on the
comment's timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. That's a
speed bump to dampen impulsive flagging.

~~~
Kinnard
Ok, that was creepy. I was wondering if I was crazy and if had just commented
or not. Thanks for the insight. Is the HN team considering open sourcing more
of HN given all the recent changes?

~~~
dang
Sorry. Our experience is that off-topic meta discussions quickly get out of
hand, most of all on divisive threads (which a partisan political thread
certainly is). To stave that off I detached your comment right away, but it
took time to give you a detailed reply.

~~~
triplesec
this is not my thread, but I - and I think probably many other users - do
appreciate the increased process transparency on HN, and the clarity and
alacrity of decision explanations. Even if people should disagree with some
decisions, at least they know what the official positions are. I look forward
to more of this increased community information, responsivity and engagement
as much as is feasible. Thank you.

~~~
dang
You're welcome, and I hope everyone realizes that they can get answers by
emailing hn@ycombinator.com as well. Posting on the site is hit and miss, but
we see all the emails.

------
DamienSF
The link suddenly disappeared from the homepage while trending...

------
fleitz
It's a rigged system that's the way it's supposed to work.

Either you overcome the rigging, or you STFU and unify with the corruption. As
Sarah Silverman would say, stop being ridiculous.

Besides, what are you going to do about it? Vote for Trump?

~~~
spdy
Never underestimate the power of "stick it to the man".

[http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/](http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/)
he has some good points.

~~~
patrickk
Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, has some amazing analysis of why he thinks Trump
will win: [http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-
climate-...](http://blog.dilbert.com/post/136818042136/trump-and-climate-
science-master-persuader)

~~~
pas
Why is that amazing?

~~~
patrickk
Ok that article is a bad example.

Here is a better example (ignore the cheesy setup, the actual analysis is very
insightful into Trump's media manipulation tactics):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4)

If you look at his blog posts written during the primary, he was saying quite
early that Trump would win also.

------
fncndhdhc
Quite typical for the mods to delete this. After all, wouldn't want word to
get out that YC's political friends are crooks.

~~~
dang
The only thing moderators did to this post is turn off the flags on it so it
would go back on the front page
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173595)).
We did that in response to emails: polite emails, I might add, making the case
for the article and the thread. Had you written a polite email instead of
posting a drive-by (and completely bogus) attack, you could have contributed
to that outcome yourself.

One good thing came of this. When I read your comment, it occurred to me to
add "Presume good faith" to our provisional list of new HN guidelines.

------
SixSigma
The irony of hosting this all on Clinton financing Google.

in for nearly $1m

[http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-
foundati...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-
donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228)

