Return to Index  

For your edification

October 10 2003 at 9:06 AM
Occhi  (no login)
from IP address

Response to Please explain to me

1. The rule is post marked, not received, by election day. Did you not read the rest of this thread? If not, I know the rule anyway due to having been Voting Officer in 1984 for my squadron. I was a real nag. "Vote, for crying out loud! Get ahold of your family, if need be, find out what you need to know about the local election, and vote your conscience!" Nag nag nag.

2. The U.S. Mail system includes a subset of post offices with discreet Zip Coes, APO and FPO, all bound by Postal Regulations and additional, more restrictive, military regulations. Some restrictions include "you can't use APO FPO to run a small, by mail, business from over seas." (I know a guy who is still doing time for blowing that one; charges included felonious Postal Regulations violation, fraud, and a few other little tidbits that included trafficking in drugs.)

3. The issue raised, if I remember the torrent of discussion, was the procedure of bundling the ballots, per postal material handling regulations, and stamping the bndle with the post mark. The IG went over to find out if the procedures used violated USPS regulations on the handling of absentee ballots. The ruling was, IIRC, that it did not, and the objection was over ruled.

4. Your assertion that the military has to prove "X" is a bit misguided, the burden of proof of voter fraud is on the complainant, and as I recall, none was shown. What was shown by the IG, as I recall, was that the mail handling of the ballots met with regulatory guidelines. Had they not, they'd have been thrown out. (And hopefully, a few officers would have been dismissed from service for screwing it up.)

Having had to deal with the challenges to my own voting here in the great state of Texas by the LULAC crowd over the past 15 years, I have no time for any jackanape who attacks, for political gain, the rights not forfeited by service members as citizens, particularly as it is all codified in U.S. Law.

The challenge was complete bullshit in the first place. It alleged "vote fixing" by the military, a conspiracy theory beyond stupid and rife with stereotypes. It was one more red herring. As it turned out, it was a PR mess, complete with Gore supporters and staff slandering serving members of the Armed Forces as tax cheats, that VP Gore really did not need at the time: he had better stuff to work with insofar as the State of Florida's procedural imperfections.

The number two pencil ballots are simply, to my way of thinking, too damned easy to work with. Why no federal standard? Money would be the answer to that.

 Respond to this message   

  1. Thank you - Van on Oct 10, 2003, 9:30 AM
    1. Yep, we see aye to aye on that one. (NT) - Occhi on Oct 10, 2003, 10:31 AM
  2. Okay... interested in your opinion - Van on Oct 10, 2003, 10:20 PM
    1. Yeah, I read that stuff a while back - Occhi on Oct 14, 2003, 6:19 AM
      1. Underhandedness was the topic - Van on Oct 19, 2003, 9:23 PM
        1. So what? - Occhi on Oct 20, 2003, 6:40 AM
Find more forums on DiabloCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  



(reserved) Other Quick Links - FAQ, History, etc..