Home > Uncategorized > Missing ballots cast doubt on past elections

Missing ballots cast doubt on past elections

diebold_ad_crapshootThe 200 ballots that disappeared from Humboldt County’s official election certification confirms longtime worry about integrity of local elections.

The Diebold-induced faux pas was uncovered by the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project. Thanks to their efforts the real tally is known, and we can have confidence in future certifications.

County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said the missing ballots wouldn’t have changed election results, but tight races in past elections now deserve a giant asterisk.

In 2006, for example, Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard won with just 28 votes. Or did he? What glitches went unnoticed back then? In the same race, Mayor Virginia Bass supposedly beat incumbent Peter LaValle by 65 votes.

Suffice it to say, national elections offer little in the way of integrity. If the United States conducted elections like Humboldt County, we might be living in a different world.

Kudos to Crnich and the Transparency Project for your service.

Learn more from the Election Transparency Project website.

  1. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 12:35 am

    I thought Mr. McWilliams was rather casual about the situation. Quite a contrast from the old days. He entered the County Clerk race years ago with fire in his eyes about the supposed corruption and electoral irregularities of his predecessor, Mr. Michaels. Michaels was a nice man who in retrospect was never demonstrated to have done a single corrupt thing during his time in office.

    Heraldo, maybe you should interview McWilliams. Who knows what you might learn?

  2. December 8, 2008 at 5:24 am

    In 2006, for example, Eureka City Councilman Jeff Leonard won with just 28 votes. Or did he?

    You forget — Ron Kuhnel paid for a full hand recount in that race. Everything was square. Which means everything was square for La Vallee/Bass, too.

  3. 06em
    December 8, 2008 at 6:17 am

    WTF?

    I thought Mr. McWilliams was rather casual about the situation. Quite a contrast from the old days. He entered the County Clerk race years ago with fire in his eyes about the supposed corruption and electoral irregularities of his predecessor, Mr. Michaels. Michaels was a nice man who in retrospect was never demonstrated to have done a single corrupt thing during his time in office.

    Heraldo, maybe you should interview McWilliams. Who knows what you might learn?

    I fired up the bs detector and fed those comments into it. Here’s what came out:

    Lindsey McWilliams’ level of excitement about the recall didn’t measure up to my personal expectation.
    When he ran for County Clerk years ago he spoke about corruption and irregularities.
    Mr Michaels was a nice man who was never caught being corrupt or irregular.
    Lindsey McWilliams is surely to blame for something.

  4. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 6:19 am

    Hank, Please do not attempt to confuse any of us here with the truth. You should already know we prefer nothing but spin and lies.

  5. Nobody But Me
    December 8, 2008 at 7:07 am

    Is that Diebold ad for real, or did you make it up? It’s absolutely perfect.

  6. Anony.Miss
    December 8, 2008 at 7:41 am

    Maybe Cherie Arkley beat Le Valley in that other tight election. Maybe maybe maybe a lot of things. I haven’t seen much about the Humboldt County Election Transparency Project in the news.

  7. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 8:11 am

    It’s absolutely perfect.

    Perfect? What casino has white crap tables? And what’s that number in the middle of the right die? Does it have significance, or was it on the original die and they left it in as a visual distraction?

    Someone unfamiliar with the Diebold controversy walks away thinking Diebold is saying paper ballots are risky, so use their services. The ad preaches to the choir, nothing more.

  8. Nobody But Me
    December 8, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Points taken, 8:11. It’s absolutely perfect as an unintentional double-entendre.

    As in, “why risk that your opponent might win?”

  9. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 8:46 am

    Ahh, that’s a message only activists would see.

  10. December 8, 2008 at 8:53 am

    HEY! whats up with fancyboy town dandy here spreading FACTS. bugg off’ this is for conspiracy theory and slanderous innuendos…

    Diebold gave away Ohio in 2004, and how many senate races???

  11. December 8, 2008 at 9:25 am

    I can’t take credit from the Diebold ad. Here’s the source.

  12. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

    Here’s the source with 29 additional images.

  13. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 11:40 am

    I thought it was an oblique reference to Democracy Unlimited and their habit of NEVER holding elections for their own leadership or any of their puppet groups like HCCR, CCP, HumIBA, HGP, etc.

  14. Anonymous
    December 8, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Oh, I almost forgot DUHC’s “parent” group California Center for Community Democracy, an organization so democratic, they’ve never held a public meeting! EVER!

    Kaitlin takes their “donations” care of the DUHC house, of course. Otherwise, their “offices” consist of a post office box in Gualala.

  15. Anonymous
    December 9, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Don’t forget Local Solutions, another NON-democratic group run by Kaitlin, with careful direction from David Cobb.

  16. Anonymous
    December 9, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Not read about it???
    Try two front page stories in the Times Standard and these on Wired.com:

    Unique Transparency Program Uncovers Problems with Voting Software
    Wired News – 16 hours ago
    By Kim Zetter December 08, 2008 | 8:38:40 PMCategories: E-Voting, Election ’08 As I wrote in my previous post, a California county uncovered a problem with …
    Unique Election Transparency Program Uncovers Voting Software Problem
    Wired News – 19 hours ago
    By Kim Zetter December 08, 2008 | 5:32:01 PMCategories: E-Voting, Election ’08 Election officials in a small county in California discovered by chance last …

  17. Ron Kuhnel
    December 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Actually after the recount the difference was 32 votes, but this did show, at least in Eureka, the missing precinct problem did not occur in 2006.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s