Ballot Review Favors Frye

[Freddie Stubbs]

Counting San Diego's disputed votes shows write-in candidate would have beaten the incumbent mayor, already sworn in.

By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer


SAN DIEGO — The hotly disputed race for mayor here took a sharp turn Tuesday as a review of disputed ballots showed that Councilwoman Donna Frye would have beaten incumbent Mayor Dick Murphy if all votes had been counted.

Tuesday's review looked at ballots that had not been counted in the official tally. It was conducted at the request of The Times, four other news organizations and two pro-Frye voters.

The results threw the politics of the state's second-largest city into confusion more than a month after the Nov. 2 election. The disputed election comes at a high-stakes time for San Diego. Whoever is mayor will face a deep financial crisis and a federal investigation of city officials. Both stem from the city's failure to properly fund its employee pension plans.

As the candidates and their lawyers and advisors plotted their next moves, Republican and Democratic political consultants and activists said the ballot review had severely weakened Murphy's position.

more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sdmayor15dec15,0,7127322.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[realFedUp]

1. Throw Mayor Dick out

[jagsd01]

23. Mayor Dick: THE PHONY MAYOR !!!!

[slackmaster]

2. I saw this coming a mile away

It's as if history is being played out from a script.

Maybe it's because I'm a techie. Maybe my unusual aptitude for machines makes me unable to appreciate the nuances of human thought that go through the heads of people who don't think like me.

The voting system we used on November 2 was new to me as it was to everyone else but it was pretty goddamn OBVIOUS that since a MACHINE reads the paper ballots and looks for a BUBBLE that if you don't FILL IN THE DAMN BUBBLE the machine has no reason to set your ballot aside so a HUMAN FUCKING BEING can read what you might have written in.

Welcome to the 21st Century: People who are TOO GODDAMN STUPID to fill in the fucking bubble don't get to vote.

:mad:

[Milo_Bloom]

3. One problem...

It is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that they only had to write in the name, since the CPU can't read what is necessarily written next to the bubble.

Write in ballots would have to be counted by hand no matter what, since people could write in any number of names!

In fact, the ONLY reason I knew to fill in the bubble for a write in was because a reporter interviewed the people waiting at my table for early voting asking if they knew to fill in the bubble. If it hadn't been for her asking someone else at my table whether they knew to fill in the bubble, I might not have done it, since NO WHERE on the ballot or in any of the instructions given by the person at the desk did they mention you had to fill in the bubble for a write in candidate!

[slackmaster]

4. Maybe for someone who doesn't work with machines much

I'm not blaming the voters per se, but by not voting in the manner specified in the law, and which Donna Frye herself explained repeatedly to the public in her ads, those thousands who failed to fill in the bubble have made it TOO EASY for their votes to get cast aside. If they'd followed the rules there wouldn't be this level of a fight needed to get the votes counted.

As it stands now Mayor Dick is on solid legal ground when he says no bubble = not a lawful vote. Beating him won't be easy, if it can be done at all.

Write in ballots would have to be counted by hand no matter what, since people could write in any number of names!

And since write-ins and recounts are pretty common events the idea of even using a machine at all seems pointless.

In fact, the ONLY reason I knew to fill in the bubble for a write in was because a reporter interviewed the people waiting at my table for early voting asking if they knew to fill in the bubble.

When I saw the scanner reading ballots it was quite clear to me that if you don't fill in the bubble there will be no reason for a human to ever examine the ballot, other than a manual recount sitation.

[rinsd]

5. I would tend to agree....

The bubble was right next to where you do the write-in.

I really feel for people who wrote in Donna Frye but failed to fill in the bubble. I just don't think she has a legal leg to stand on as I don't think voter intent is part of any California election law but I could be wrong.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. Sorry, it just doesn't add up.

"I'm not blaming the voters per se, but by not voting in the manner specified in the law, and which Donna Frye herself explained repeatedly to the public in her ads, those thousands who failed to fill in the bubble have made it TOO EASY for their votes to get cast aside. If they'd followed the rules there wouldn't be this level of a fight needed to get the votes counted."

I never saw a SINGLE Donna Frye ad. Not one. Granted I rarely watched any local programming, but still, didn't see a single ad. There was NO RULE in the ballot or given as instructions stating that the bubble had to be filled in for write in ballots. It said mark the oval next to your choice. Logically, if you write in the name, that is your choice, what logical reason would there be for marking the oval?

I work with machines all the time, on computers all day, but if I hadn't heard that reporter ask the question 2 minutes before going in, I probably wouldn't have filled in the bubble. Since it is a write in candidate, I would have realized that every ballot not chossing one of the 2 would have to be examined by hand.

"When I saw the scanner reading ballots it was quite clear to me that if you don't fill in the bubble there will be no reason for a human to ever examine the ballot, other than a manual recount sitation."

Where did you see a scanner reading ballots? Did they take you into a special room before you voted? I voted early. We were handed the ballots, stuck in a tiny cardboard booth and given a writing instrument (they gave me a black tip marker when someone had stolen whatever was there before).


Can Donna win this thing? Absolutely. The argument is fairly clear and simple and you don't need an "intent of the voter" rule to overcome it. All you need to do is argue to the judge (presuming judge who can think) what the intent of the original law was... in This case it was to avoid voter and ballot counting confusion. The law was not created as a voter test, the law was created to cause the least amount of confusion. The state is allowed to require someone to perform a specific action to mark their choice, marking a bubble, punching a hole, etc.

First, in this case the instructions WEREN'T CLEAR. Period. You may want to say that your experience of scantrons and prior knowledge of how the votes were to be read made it clear to YOU, but that is you. Was it clear to the average voter that the bubble had to be marked for a write in canddiate? I have read those instructions several times and saw NOTHING about a write in candidate needing a bubble filled in.

Second, here, the potential harm (people's votes being discounted, incorrect election results) outweighs the strict enforcement of the law. When it comes to fundamental rights like voting, courts are often forced to balance the harms. Given the confusion in the instructions and the evidence of confusions (4,000 + ballots clearly showing the same intention and error), it should be fairly easy for a court to order them to be counted as valid votes.

Now, one may try to say that the Butterfly ballot from Florida would fall into this category; however, the problem there is that there was no clear indication of how the people really meant to vote. That there was a statistical argument that an error was made is without doubt, the result on its face didn't show clear votes for any other candidate, as it does in this case.

In the end, the result should be fairly easy, but there needs to be a big fight over this and not just dismissed as "illegal" votes or stupid voters or anything else of the sort.

[slackmaster]

7. "Mark the oval next to your choice"

It said mark the oval next to your choice.

That's right.

Logically, if you write in the name, that is your choice, what logical reason would there be for marking the oval?

Because the instructions clearly say to mark the oval next to your choice. You write in your choice, then mark the oval next to it.

:dunce:

Personally I think you'd have to be dense or at least have a massive brain fart not to mark the oval. If you don't need to mark the oval next to a write-in vote then why did they put the oval there? For decoration?

:argh:

Where did you see a scanner reading ballots?

Right in front of me while I stood in line waiting to vote. Each voter completed his or her ballot, then fed it into the scanning machine. One man in line commented that the machine looked a lot like a paper shredder. Everyone laughed.

[Milo_Bloom]

8. Not at all persuasive

"It said mark the oval next to your choice.

That's right.

Logically, if you write in the name, that is your choice, what logical reason would there be for marking the oval?

Because the instructions clearly say to mark the oval next to your choice. You write in your choice, then mark the oval next to it."

Sorry, but you still aren't making a very good case here, nor are you factually correct on what the instructions stated. First, in general, if your choice is NOT LISTED, why on earth would you need to mark an oval next to it? Your choice is NOT LISTED, which is why you have to write it in. Even IF the instructions were as you stated, marking the oval on seems required IF your choice is listed.

Secondly, according to the information available, the instructions were different for absentees/early voters and those who went in on election day. (http://electionlawblog.org/archives/002480.html) We received a seperate set of instructions that said NOTHING about darkening an oval, only to write in the name.

Nearly 25% of the votes cast, were cast absentee/early. So are you trying to claim that despite the fact the instructions included with the ballot said nothing about filling in ovals, people were supposed to fill it in anyway?

Just stop and :think:

The voter confusion argument is so obvious and easy, given the conflicting instructions and lack of clear directions on the actual ballots and even the voter day ballots. The argument in the precedent case hinges on the fact that the instructions were crystal clear, but the voters chose to ignore them. Here voters could follow the directions and still end up with an "illegal" vote. :crazy:

"If you don't need to mark the oval next to a write-in vote then why did they put the oval there? For decoration?"

Who knows, who cares, but NO WHERE on the ballot (on any of the ballots) did it specify that you had to mark the oval for write in candidates. The instructions simply wasn't there. The fact that you want people to extrapolate that they must mark an oval when they also are writing in their choice is cute, but it simply doesn't make logical sense.

"Hmmm, I am writing in a name which is going to have to be examined by hand, but I guess I better mark this oval so the machine can count the vote that it can't count anyway." Oh yeah, that makes sense.

:eyes:


"Right in front of me while I stood in line waiting to vote. Each voter completed his or her ballot, then fed it into the scanning machine. One man in line commented that the machine looked a lot like a paper shredder. Everyone laughed."

Obviously you didn't vote early. There was no such thing for the early voters. We took our ballots, sealed them into envelopes and placed them in a box. No machines, nothing.

However, even seeing the machines doesn't overcome the basic lack of clear instructions.

[slackmaster]

9. You say po-TAY-to, I say po-TAH-to

...if your choice is NOT LISTED, why on earth would you need to mark an oval next to it? Your choice is NOT LISTED,...

But after you write your choice in it IS listed.

:party:

The voter confusion argument is so obvious and easy, given the conflicting instructions and lack of clear directions on the actual ballots and even the voter day ballots.

Yes, EXCEPT for the fact that about 97% of the people who wrote in Donna Frye as a write-in candidate DID fill in the bubble. The problem is the 3% who didn't. BTW I think one can make a reasonable argument that someone might have written in Donna Frye's name then decided not to vote for her. Surely out of 150,000+ ballots someone might have done that. Donna claiming 100% of the ballots that have her name written in, unfortunately, does not hold water.

"Hmmm, I am writing in a name which is going to have to be examined by hand, but I guess I better mark this oval so the machine can count the vote that it can't count anyway." Oh yeah, that makes sense.

:eyes:


Given that the ballots were read by machine it makes perfect sense.

However, even seeing the machines doesn't overcome the basic lack of clear instructions.

The instructions were clear enough for about three Quaalcom Stadiums full of people to get it right.

Please understand something - I'm playing Devil's Advocate with you here. I believe Donna Frye should be the mayor because (judging by obvious voter intent) IMO she got the most votes. But the law does not allow for write-ins without the bubble filled in to be counted. As Mayor Dick said, anyone who feels disenfranchised can talk to a judge about it (and I think they SHOULD).

My vote counted.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Sorry again, but votes just ain't spuds.

"...if your choice is NOT LISTED, why on earth would you need to mark an oval next to it? Your choice is NOT LISTED,...

But after you write your choice in it IS listed."

And thus you have to then mark it AGAIN????? :crazy:

"Yes, EXCEPT for the fact that about 97% of the people who wrote in Donna Frye as a write-in candidate DID fill in the bubble. The problem is the 3% who didn't. BTW I think one can make a reasonable argument that someone might have written in Donna Frye's name then decided not to vote for her. Surely out of 150,000+ ballots someone might have done that. Donna claiming 100% of the ballots that have her name written in, unfortunately, does not hold water."

Sorry, but not a reasonable argument in the least. If someone wrote in Donna's name and THEN marked a different bubble one could make that case OR crossed out the name. However, given the lack of clear instructions, someone writing in her name and making no other marks (especially when the instructions didn't specify that you had to darken the oval for write in ballots) is perfectly reasonable.

"Given that the ballots were read by machine it makes perfect sense"

Except for the fact that write in ballots must be read by humans and are not readable by machine.


"The instructions were clear enough for about three Quaalcom Stadiums full of people to get it right.

Please understand something - I'm playing Devil's Advocate with you here. I believe Donna Frye should be the mayor because (judging by obvious voter intent) IMO she got the most votes. But the law does not allow for write-ins without the bubble filled in to be counted. As Mayor Dick said, anyone who feels disenfranchised can talk to a judge about it (and I think they SHOULD).

My vote counted."

I know you are playing Devil's Advocate, but the argument you are presenting isn't reasonable.

I guess you didn't have any problem with the butterfly ballot in Florida, either, right? That was a FAR lower % of people, less than 1% by most estimates, yes we still hear about it all the time. 269,000+ people managed to choose the correct hole, while about 2,500 people appeared to make a mistake (figuring Pat would have legitimately gotten about 1000 votes in that area, may be generous, who knows)

Now, there we had a real problem because there was no way to discern clear intent. But, it WAS a problem, because it was obvious voter confusion led to the wrong person getting into office.

Here you have unclear and conflicting instructions (absentee and early voter instructions did not mention darkening the oval), even voter instructions mentioned nothing about darkening the oval for write ins. AND you have a much MUCH higher % of voter confusion (3.5% or more) AND you have a clear indication of what the voter wanted. AND finally, you have the reality that the voter confusion (due to the incorrect and unclear instructions) conclusively CHANGED the election results.

This is kinda like the Iraq war. There really is no other reaonable side to the argument. There are those who want to believe the hype and propaganda (that the votes cast were "illegal" or that the people who cast them were "stupid" reminds me of the people who believed that there were really WMD's in Iraq and that after 10 years of poverty Hussein had been building up his arsenal to strike and of course was also involved in 9/11, despite all the evidence to the contrary) and there are those who cut through the BS, realize the instructions were not perfectly clear, not everyone watches for campaign ads and it is perfectly reasonable that some people wouldn't have realized that filling in the bubble on a scantron was a requirement to having their WRITE IN vote count. (This is the same as people who didn't believe Iraq was an immediate threat to the US in any way shape or form and never doubted this for a moment.)


Here's the main problem. When you play Devil's Advocate with as unreasonable a position as you are doing, you give that position validity it does not deserve! This is all really clear cut. The instructions were unclear and contradictory. It led to voter confusion. Many voters followed the instructions exactly (remember absentee ballots instructions contained no demand to fill in the oval) The voter confusion led to the wrong people getting into office.

My vote probably counted as well, as I learned about the bubble before going in; however, I don't purport to be so superior to the rest of the world as to not understand how someone wouldn't fill in the bubble.

[slackmaster]

11. If my Devil's Advocate position is "unreasonable" then please explain

How I am giving "validity" to it? Don't make me take that as some kind of compliment! }(

This is all really clear cut.

I'm a reasonable person and for some strange reason I can see that there is more than one way another reasonable person might look at the situation. Reasonableness or lack thereof often comes down to a matter of personal opinion rather than any empirically provable degree of merit. Mayor Dick's position that failure to fill in the bubble means you didn't vote seems reasonable to him and to most people who voted for him. Of course they have an axe to grind, but as Frye supporters so do we.

...I don't purport to be so superior to the rest of the world as to not understand how someone wouldn't fill in the bubble.

Just as the side that wins a war has the privilege of naming the war, it is the prerogative of people who understood and followed the instructions to feel superior to those who didn't.

;-)

There is a silver lining to this cloud:

- Donna may not end up mayor but she's still on the city council. She's been the lone voice on the correct side of many issues, and people know it.

- Mayor Dick's nudity is apparent to everyone in the crowd. He has NO mandate. The people have spoken and he can't get away with business as usual or he'll be recalled - There are enough pissed off people in the electorate to oust him if he makes one more major screwup.

We may not get justice, but sometimes being right is enough of a reward, I think.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. There is a difference between reason and bias.

"I'm a reasonable person and for some strange reason I can see that there is more than one way another reasonable person might look at the situation. Reasonableness or lack thereof often comes down to a matter of personal opinion rather than any empirically provable degree of merit. Mayor Dick's position that failure to fill in the bubble means you didn't vote seems reasonable to him and to most people who voted for him. Of course they have an axe to grind, but as Frye supporters so do we."


See, here is the main point. I don't believe that Dick's position seems reasonable to him. He knows it is BS. He knows it against the "American way". You can see it in his face when he tries to say "illegal" votes. It doesn't roll easy off his tounge, but he HAS TO say it to maintain his position. Just because he can say it with a semi-straight face doesn't mean the position is reasonable. And just because the minions who hate Donna Frye can repeat it, doesn't mean it is based on reason either, it is based on their bias! I remember watching Colin Powell whore himself in front of the UN. Do you really think he BELIEVED in the BS he was peddling? When Bush's state of the union speech with all the lies was prepared, do you think the people really believed it or believed that is what they had to say? Was it reason or bias that led them to say what they said?

The right sold the war on lies, half-truths, propoganda and the like. People who played "Devil's advocate" with the war diginified positions that had no basis in reality. The lines of truth quickly get blurred. People bring up the "mass graves" and try to use it as justification, forgetting that those people were killed BEFORE the first gulf war. But, it suddenly became acceptable to use that in an argument. Was that a product or reason or bias?

Similarly, by suggesting that the instructions were clear (when they were not) or that the right to have your vote counted doesn't outweigh unclear/contradictory instructions and voter confusion is simply giving a voice an argument that has no real weight. Are you suggesting that if the shoe was on the other foot, you would believe that people's vote SHOULDN'T be counted? Is that position based on a reasonable analysis of the facts OR is it based on a bias to want a particular side to win at all costs?

When my fiance and I joined the protest lines in 2000, she had an awesome sign, which read, "REAL AMERICANS BELIEVE EVERY VOTE SHOULD BE COUNTED". Nothing about Gore, nothing about Bush. Just that. It was funny to watch the wingnuts in the counter protest freak out about her sign, yelling, "what about the military" or things like that. She would hold up the sign and ask what about it was unclear. EVERY vote should be counted. Military, citizen, all of them. Whether it is a technicality like not getting the stylus through the hole or not filling in a bubble AFTER writing in your candidates name shouldn't matter, or even a military person stationed on a boat whose envelope didn't get a postmark stamped when they were mailed. EVERY vote should be given the same respect UNLESS it is clear it is fraud or impossible to read (someone fills in ALL the bubbles, punches multiple holes or it is postmarked 3 days AFTER the election.)

Now, let's settle one thing. Reasonableness is NOT based on blind opinion, it is based on facts. When you hear the expression "reasonable doubt" that means doubt based on evidence. A doubt not based on the evidence is not considered reasonable. The media loves to mess this up when they talk about a defendent having to be proven guilty beyond a "shadow of a doubt" WRONG... reasonable doubt... which means doubt based on the evidence, not a poltical, social or economical bias.

Along this line, the fact that one can expound a theory (no matter how off base it may be) in which the votes should be cast aside doesn't make that theory reasonable, since it isn't based on the actual facts and analysis of the real evidence.

"Just as the side that wins a war has the privilege of naming the war, it is the prerogative of people who understood and followed the instructions to feel superior to those who didn't."

Sorry, but not quite. Just becuase the rich don't have the right to feel superior to the poor just because they may have made better choices at key moments in their life, neither does someone have the right to feel superior for filling in a bubble, especially when there were thousands of other voters who didn't receive the same instructions as they (such as the absentee/early voters whose instructions didn't mention the bubble at all).


"There is a silver lining to this cloud:

- Donna may not end up mayor but she's still on the city council. She's been the lone voice on the correct side of many issues, and people know it.

- Mayor Dick's nudity is apparent to everyone in the crowd. He has NO mandate. The people have spoken and he can't get away with business as usual or he'll be recalled - There are enough pissed off people in the electorate to oust him if he makes one more major screwup.

We may not get justice, but sometimes being right is enough of a reward, I think"

Hmm, now when was the last time I heard talk like this?? I remember an election some years ago, I think about 4, in which someone was elected to office clearly without a popular mandate and under very questionable circumstances. In fact, his victory was so weak that everyone thought he would have no real power in office, wouldn't be able to get things done, and would basically get swept under the rug in 4 years as a strange little joke in our nation's history. I don't think things turned out the way everyone thought they would. But, hey, we were right! He didn't win the vote. He DID plunge us into a recession. He DID turn a surpluss into a defecit. He DID lie to take us to war. He DID make us a hated nation in the world. He DID take away many civil rights and liberties. He DID sell us out to the big oil companies (especially here in Cali). What did his incompitence get us? 4 MORE YEARS and if people keep accepting having votes thrown out for legal teachnicalities, I have little doubt 4 more years after that and after that as well.

You see, complacency builds quickly. In 2000 the butterfly ballot made it okay to blame the voter for confusion. Those damn voters screwed it all up, punching the wrong hole like that... BAD VOTER. Now unclear/contradictory instructions? No, its the damn voters fault again. over 5,000 of them this time. Damn epidemic must be growing. I wonder how many will screw up in the next election and how they will get blamed this time? Maybe they won't be able to afford their poll tax? Maybe they they will show up at the wrong table and have their ballots discounted... oh wait, that happened this time in Ohio, didn't it?

But, don't worry, take solace in the fact that you were RIGHT. :party:

[slackmaster]

13. One semi-brief comment on a core issue and I'm out of this thread

Now, let's settle one thing. Reasonableness is NOT based on blind opinion, it is based on facts. When you hear the expression "reasonable doubt" that means doubt based on evidence. A doubt not based on the evidence is not considered reasonable....

This is an interesting and IMO useful way of analyzing the situation. I've served on three trial juries.

Here in California, in the criminal justice system reasonable doubt is defined as a state of mind that can exist in the mind of a reasonable person after considering the totality of the evidence.

But evidence is not always made up of fact. Evidence can include expert opinions. Also, a piece of evidence purported to be factual and presented to the jury for consideration is not necessarily an accurate and unbiased description of reality. For example, in a criminal case the defendant's brother made a ham-handed attempt to create an alibi; that the defendant had been with him at a party at the time a crime was believed to have occurred. The brother made several other statements that if taken as truth would have been exculpatory. Because of inconsistencies in his statements, his body language on the stand, his tone of voice, and his obvious bias we the jurors chose to disregard everything that witness had said in testimony.

Truth and reality are not always black and white. I honestly believe the instructions were clear enough that a reasonable person should have known to fill in the bubble. Your experience was different because you voted early, and you believe the instructions were not clear. Neither of us is in a position here to say the other's viewpoint is not reasonable. When you are on a jury your job is to determine the truth to the best of your ability given evidence presented to you in a formal, controlled, auditable manner. In determining what a reasonable person would conclude, each juror relies on his or her life experience, education, upbringing, etc.

If determining the truth based on evidence that is NORMALLY somewhat fuzzy was a straightforward process there would be no need for more than one person to serve on a given jury. Or maybe three so that two could override the vote of one juror who turns out to be insane or biased. But in California a jury consists of 12, and it's rare that the determination of a verdict happens instantly.

That did happen in one civil case I served on. The only evidence we had to consider was a parade of expert medical witnesses who all said exactly the same thing regarding a nurse's handling of an incident that led to a tragic outcome for a patient in a hospital. Literally nobody was brought in by the plaintiff (a severely disabled woman) to say the nurse screwed up, so it took us only 10 minutes to decide she and the doctors, hospital, etc. were not liable. Personally we felt very badly about it and were left with lingering doubts, but we did our job according to the instructions we were given.

I've offered some money to the Frye campaign to pursue a court challenge, but my gut feeling tells me if it goes to trial the same kind of thing is going to happen. The judge will instruct the jury that the letter of the law says you have to fill in the bubble whether you were handed specific written instructions that effect or not.

If Mayor Dick was a real man he'd offer to allow the un-bubbled votes to be counted and to step aside if the count favors Donna. As you said he wants to win, but I would not be so quick to judge what's going on inside of his head. I personally know a lot of very reasonable people who have said essentially "The election has to be counted based on rules agreed upon BEFORE the election, not after. If you didn't fill in the bubble, tough shit."

I haven't given up all hope, but generally that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Can't let you get away with that completely....

Notice what I said, "Reasonableness is NOT based on blind opinion, it is based on facts"

Then you stated.

"But evidence is not always made up of fact. Evidence can include expert opinions."

This isn't really true. The expert must base the "opinion" on the facts. An expert can't take the stand and say, "I believe X", "why", "because I am an expert". No, they must justify their opinion on facts. Those facts cannot be bias. A DNA expert takes the stand to explain why he believes OJ killed Ron Goldman. He states in his expert opinion, it was OJ's blood at the scene. When asked to justify his opinion, he states that black men kill white men, that's just the way it happens and there was no need to examine the actual facts. Will his opinion stand up? Of course not. Opinions, even those of experts, cannot be based on bias, they must be based on actual facts.

Even in the example you give, Because of inconsistencies in his statements, his body language on the stand, his tone of voice, and his obvious bias we the jurors chose to disregard everything that witness had said in testimony. You state a ton of facts and then derrive an opinion from it. Body language = fact. Tone of voice = fact. Inconsistencies = fact. Based on those facts you came to a reasonable opinion. Now, flip the example:

Let's say his story was perfect. He told it well, no inconsistencies, no tone of voice. However, one juror decided that he was lying. When asked why, she explains, "because he is left handed and left handed people always lie". That juror could easily be removed from the jury, since that is not based on real facts, but instead, pure bias.

I honestly believe the instructions were clear enough that a reasonable person should have known to fill in the bubble. Your experience was different because you voted early, and you believe the instructions were not clear. Neither of us is in a position here to say the other's viewpoint is not reasonable.

Here's the problem. To reach your conclusion, you have to ignore real facts and that is that the instructions sent with absentee ballots did NOT contain instructions to fill in the oval, just to write in the name.

Jury trials exist because often things aren't as black and white as they are here. In most trials there are huge grey areas and it is the job of the jury to decide who is telling the truth, since both sides present very different pictures.

Here, there is only 1 picture to paint. Inconsistent instructions led to voter confusion and the candidate who didn't receive the most votes getting into office. That the instructions were inconsistent is not debateable, it is a real fact. That there was voter confusion is not debateable, it is a real fact. That more people voted for Donna Frye is not debateable, it is a real fact.

The judge will instruct the jury that the letter of the law says you have to fill in the bubble whether you were handed specific written instructions that effect or not.

In order to do this, the judge will have to ignore the precedent case, which based its decision in part on the extreme clarity of the instructions. Other cases have found that when instructions were inconsistent, the votes MUST be counted (http://majordomo.lls.edu/cgi-bin/lwgate/ELECTION-LAW_GL/archives/election-law_gl.archive.0411/date/article-273.html)

I personally know a lot of very reasonable people who have said essentially "The election has to be counted based on rules agreed upon BEFORE the election, not after. If you didn't fill in the bubble, tough shit."

Well, either those people don't know the actual facts (that these rules were not given to everyone before the election, that the registar routinely corrects "overvotes" where the voter both wrote in Dick Murphy AND filled in the bubble in both places, since the intent of the voter is clear AND that if the name was included on a blank sheet of paper and not written on the ballot, it would have been counted) OR they haven't examined the facts reasonably.

I don't see any real way one can hold that position and consider all the facts at the same time.

[Liberty Belle]

15. Many of Donna's supporters never saw her ads.

A lot of this was word-of-mouth---true grassroots organizing.

[Senior citizen]

16. There has been proof of bubble fraud.

There is a proven case where a scanner misread the bubbles. Not here in San Diego, but since it HAS happened, it CAN happen. Even a single case of a scanner misreading the bubbles means that bubbles are not infallible. A voter might be tired, harried, and, after standing in line for several hours, might fill in the wrong bubble. Or the scanner might misread the bubbles. But when you spell out somebody's name, bubble or no bubble, your intention is clear.

The intent of the voters is clear in this case. We intended to elect Donna Frye. Some voters have a lawyer and are going to court, for whatever good that might do.

There are a million technicalities a judge can use to frustrate justice, and a million ways election boards can frustrate the intent of the voters. But God, we the voters, and anyone who cares about truth, knows that Dick Murphy is as legitimate as Bush--and he'd probably think that was a compliment.

[Senior citizen]

17. Rallies for Frye and Count Every Vote! (San Diego)

There will be a rally on Thursday, Dec. 23rd, 2:00 p.m. at Civic Center.

A bigger rally is scheduled for Sunday, Jan. 2nd, 1:00 p.m., starting at 4th and Broadway and marching two blocks to the County Administration Building.

Wear orange!

[Milo_Bloom]

18. If the time can be changed.....

Did they really schedule a rally for the exact same time as the Chargers final regular season home game?

Given the current onset of Charger fever in this area this is probably the very worst time they could have picked to start a rally. Depending on how the rest of the season pans out, this could be a game that decides home field throughout the playoffs.

Just a thought!

[Senior citizen]

19. I know you won't believe this.....

....but some people are actually more concerned with voting rights than with bread and circuses.

The billions of dollars put into sports may keep many people so distracted that they never think about democracy, but not everyone is taken in. Personally, I don't want to look at people who earn million-dollar salaries amusing people who buy fifteen-dollar hot dogs, and I don't like tax money going to provide the arenas where Christians are thrown to the lions for the amusement of tyrants, while homeless people huddle under cardboard a few blocks away.

I understand that some people care more about sports than about democracy. Can you understand that some people do not, or is this just good old boys versus intellectual elites in your view?

How about them Chargers? How about free and fair elections? You decide what's more important to you, and I'll decide what's more important to me.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. You misunderstood...

This isn't about what YOU or I care more about. To me, free and fair elections are far more important than the Chargers first winning season in 10 years.

However, the point of a rally is to attract attention to a cause and swing people to your way of thinking. It is a show of strength and unity. However, planning a rally at the exact same time the local media and the VAST majority of the local market will be focused on another event (Chargers' games are getting 60+ shares in the local TV ratings, meaning more than 60% of people are tuning in) guarantees that this more important story will not get the coverage it deserves.

[Senior citizen]

21. My apologies, Milo--

The left is accustomed by now to not getting the coverage it deserves on anything. Frye's campaign got an amazing amount of coverage, and is continuing to do so, probably because the big money in San Diego is well aware of the consequences of fiscal irregularities in city government. For example, without a good credit rating, the city can't float bonds to build stadiums, among other things. So even the people with their hands in the cookie jar aren't entirely opposed to putting a lid on it for now, simply because they'd like more cookies in the future.

The vast majority of the people at the rally will probably be those who aren't particularly interested in sports, and who couldn't afford Chargers' tickets if they were. There will probably be a few with TIVO or VCRs, who will watch the game later. Coverage of the rally isn't likely to be live--it is usually filmed live and played on the evening news.

The rally is billed as, "The 5,547 Vote March," that being the number of write-in votes for Frye where the bubble wasn't filled in. Murphy "won" by 2,108 votes, because 5,547 Frye votes weren't counted. I wonder what would happen in a football game if there was a similar situation, where everyone could see who scored, but the officials called it differently on a technicality. Scratch that--I KNOW what would happen, and it wouldn't be pretty.

[not fooled]

22. the 'puke case against Donna goes out the window...

...because the reg (& GOP handmaiden) Sally Mcpherson instructed vote counters to correct ballots in cases when the voter put in an X or otherwise failed to fill in the bubble...EXCEPT for Donna. So, an X for murphy = the bubble got filled in. I have heard this from a couple sources and also that it was in the UT (wouldn't know about that since I no longer purchase that asswipe).

So, the notion that any incorrectly filled out vote doesn't get counted is bogus---it only doesn't get counted when the 'pukes don't want it to, i.e. when it would usurp their hold on power in lovely Ess Dee.