Thursday, August 28, 2014

This is my understanding about the status of the election results on the Lake Worth 2020 bonds

The Canvassing Board met yesterday, starting at 1:30, and reviewed provisional ballots. Those are ballots that are given to people when the status of their identification, polling location or other factor is questioned or otherwise not available. Through the process, the Lake Worth issue gained one "yes" vote in relation to the "no" votes, bringing the difference to 25 in favor of the "no" votes. A 15 vote difference would have triggered an automatic recount. That opportunity is now gone. There are other remedies the city may seek, but I am unaware of the status of those at this time.

The call is still going out to people who had difficultly with absentee ballots (many didn't receive them as usual this year as the list was purged and you had to re-identify yourself if you wanted an absentee ballot), polling location confusion, not showing up on the registered voter database, being made to submit a provisional ballot, etc. Also, if you are aware of any voter fraud that would be important to report. One example would be if your permanent residence as shown by your driver's license is outside the city of Lake Worth, but you voted here anyway since you were still registered here. If you or someone else did that, that is against the law.

I'll keep you posted as I find out more. I hope to have my radio show this week highlight what happened on Tuesday and am lining up people to talk about it. Contact me if you are interested.

Here is Channel 12's report from yesterday.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

If you fast forward to November and the Election Supervisor Bucher's new election method has major problems your Lake Worth vote last Tuesday will be Bucher's downfall. Here's why. You have a very close vote only a few votes short of an automatic recount. The Lake Worth vote COULD HAVE BEEN the test to see how good the new system works.

Any new voting method needs to tested in the real world. Why wait until the general election in November to test it? Seems foolish doesn't it? Unless there are flaws or tweaks still being made. And that would be discovered in a close vote by a recount. What better way to instill trust in the community then have a test and assuage the voters confusion or mistrust?

If there are problems with the Bucher's new system in November voters and candidates will reasonably ask why a real world test wasn't done. Let's say in the preceding March in a close vote in Lake Worth. Also the data Bucher COULD HAVE LEARNED from testing the system MAY HAVE HAD data and information indicating weaknesses in the new system.

Ralph