"More insidiously, those independent non-partisan voters who did successfully manage to get registered as "Decline to State" (or DTS, or Non-Partisan), were allowed to vote in the Democratic Presidential Primary if they requested to do so when voting. However, without filling in a certain bubble on the ballot, specifying they wanted it to be counted in the Dem Primary, their vote for President, according to LA County's Registrar of Voters, will not be counted."

Isn't it great that in this primary, where independents could vote, and did, that just indicating the candidate on their ballot is not enough?

Why the "double-check" system? This does not appear to be a closed primary. If it can be clearly ascertained who they voted for, those ballots should be counted.

Seems like a way to create undervotes without adjusting the scanner to "not see" certain marks that didn't fill in enough of the space or weren't dark enough.

Who were those DTS voters predicted to break for- Obama or Clinton?

Think the DTS voters have right to legal recourse?

Logan didn't have to go along with McCormack's scheme. But then, his hiring didn't make sense after the Washington Governor's election. Los Angeles must have some counter-intuitive criteria for election officials.

The media never really explained why the NH exit polls were so far off of the actual results from the primary in NH.

I don't want to add fuel to the fire of conspiracy theories, but I just did the math of all of the exit polls released late afternoon to the actual results as of 12:29 PST right now and this is what I got.

If you take the actual results and match them up against what the exit polls indicated the results should have been, the discrepancy with the exception of 3 states is in favor of Clinton. And in some cases by huge numbers.

How can exit polls which are supposed to be based on what people actually just voted be so in favor of one candidate and so against another?

Georgia: Obama -9, Clinton +5
Connecticut: Obama -1, Clinton +2
Illinois: Obama -6, Clinton +2
Alabama: Obama -6, Clinton +5
Delaware: Obama -3, Clinton +0
Massachusetts: Obama -9, Clinton +9
Missouri: Obama -1, Clinton +3
Tennessee: Obama -1, Clinton +2
New York: Obama -2, Clinton +1
New Jersey: Obama -8, Clinton +7
Arkansas: Obama +1, Clinton -2
Oklahoma: Obama +1, Clinton -6
Arizona: Obama -9, Clinton +6
New Mexico: Obama -5, Clinton +3
Utah: Obama -3, Clinton -1
California: Obama -7, Clinton +3

Most inaccurate exit polls by total point difference (all in Clinton's favor):

Massachusetts: 18 points
New Jersey: 15 points
Arizona: 15 points
Georgia: 14 points
Alabama: 11 points
California: 10 points
Illinois: 8 points

Is there any rational explanation for this? Or can someone shed more light as to why exit polls are so skewed? Particularly in favor of the Clintons?

Yet Obama blows expectations away in the caucus states where voting is out in the open and there is accountability. The reason I always hear is that Obama has a great grassroots organization.

And for the skewed polling, they always say it's The Bradley Effect and people don't want to be honest. But exit polls aren't like phone polls --- they fill out a form that is completely anonymous and they don't have to tell anyone face to face how they voted. So that pressure to lie just wouldn't be there.

So why the huge difference? And is it just plain coincidence that the biggest discrepancy was in Massachusetts which next to New Jersey and California would have been considered a huge upset to the Clintons?

This is Off topic. I might be naive here, but I just found this page and it lists delegates and superdelegates who haven't endorsed

First question: Why are we bothering to care about voting integrity if these "delegates and superdelegates" (Which kind of looked like a stacked deck of existing senators and representatives to me) are going to choose the candidate?

Second question: How can they be wearing two hats like that?

I guess I really really don't understand this. I have nothing but contempt for this delegate garbage. When did all this start? I thought the "electoral college" was the problem. You mean to tell me theres a delegates college too!? I mean why did we just vote? Apparently (according to that website) they have already voted for us. This is seriously just opened the rabbit hole for me. If that list wasn't bad enough, maybe this list will do it for you? (a list of superdelegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention that have officially announced who they plan to nominate.)

Should delegates need Secret Service protection if this ever comes into the light of day. ( I mean they're basically stealing the vote from the voters right?!)

I have had it with this bullshit.

With lists like those, it seems to me the elected are selecting the elections. No wonder the PNAC/AIPAC/CFR candidates always win!!! If the deck is stacked this way, then perhaps I should just get out of this "defending the vote" crap right now. Since this stuff is really taking a toll on my health since 2004. I am getting like two hours sleep at a time now.

I don't see how this can go on and we call ourselves a constitutional republic. The United States is so done, it's just people don't know it yet. Maybe time for me to go out and party with bands or something and get out of this forever. I am talking "burned out I am" from this latest stinking revelation. Maybe better for me to stop all this noise I post on BradBlog, and just go try to enjoy what's left of my diminishing civil rights, health, freedom and braincells.

I Am Seriously depressed on learning this.

I am so naive, I don't think the people even care. I think that's the reason why there's only been a hand full of us saying a god damn thing. Even though I just learned this about delegates, I wonder now about the electoral college. It appears that our government is lost and digging a grave for all of us.

Unless someone out there wants to tell me why I should still care anymore, then I think I am going to give up. Because 99% of the people out there don't care anyway right! Who ever all these nasty fucking people are they have ruined this country.

Alright, back to the regularly scheduled voter disenfranchisement games for now. Didn't mean to interrupt this thread and story about the wrong ballots for the wrong party, decline to state. IMO - it's just another line of dirty tricks, only now I wonder if it isn't just smoke and mirrors while the delegates do their dirty work. (If I'd have seen an open thread I would have used that instead. as this post has NOTHING to do with this thread. But I think I am done here. I'll keep the links up on my websites to support Bradblog, but what the hell else is there with these delegates and electoral college? I might as well go waste brain cells and create art.)

Massachusetts: Obama -9, Clinton +9

New Jersey: Obama -8, Clinton +7

What is interesting here as noted by JW is that these differences are reciprocally different. Would this statistical information be credible evidence that voting machines could have been preloaded with negative and positive votes to create a clean zero report but still come out with skewed results?

It looks like the problems will follow the pattern the constitution (we used to have) experienced during its demise.

The problems increase and are so many that like Dylan's "there's so much oppression, can't keep track of it anymore".

And the money is getting more and more scarce that could have been used to fix American instead of f**king up Iraq:

There is a growing risk of defaults on loans on commercial property this year, in a trend that could spill over into tumbling values and create more jitters in the credit world, analysts and bankers warn.
...
Analysts warn of a pattern that could spread. US commercial property prices have fallen 10 per cent in some markets since August, after rising more than 90 per cent since 2001, according to Real Capital Analytics.

(Financial Times, emphasis added).

Just wipe the rust off the evoting machines next time you use them.

Badger #1

You said:

Los Angeles must have some counter-intuitive criteria for election officials.

Yep, and how about Mikey "eVoodoo" Vu who was transplanted from Ohio following the debacle there?

Debra has her hands full cleaning up her state.

JW #2

Without links to official numbers we have to take your assertions on faith. You know that is against our religion ... so how about some links already?

Phil #3

We care and you care or you wouldn't be here with the rest of us. Frustration with the current environment is a sign of sanity. Dig it, you are exhibiting signs of sanity. It is harder to be sane these daze, swimming against the insane current, than it is to be a neoCon psychotic floating downstream with the government insanity.

Philter #3, That's what I meant the other day when I commented that we would be voting for Hillary come November anyway because the dLC still controls the party...by those damn super delegates. Sorry, I just ass u med we all knew that trick.

Brad, re your #2 problem, that was not the case in Sonoma County. For every NP voter, we simply asked them which ballot they wanted to vote on: Dem, AI, or NP. Then, we gave them that ballot, the same ballot that all voters who voted under whatever party they requested used.

What's with having a completely separate ballot altogether?

Re your #1 problem, we did not have that many cases of AI people in our precinct, but I agree, I think it's shameful to have a party called the American Independent Party, when it results in people thinking they're registering as independents when they are not.

Sorry, the link I followed was from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpos...-exit-polls_n_85176.html

Similar #'s were posted on a few other sites.

Revised totals reflecting what we know now:

Georgia: Obama 75 (66) -9, Clinton 26 (31) +5
Connecticut: Obama 52 (51) -1, Clinton 45 (47) +2
Illinois: Obama 70 (64) -6, Clinton 29 (33) +4
Alabama: Obama 60 (56) -4, Clinton – 37 (42) +5
Delaware Obama 56 (53) -3, Clinton 42 (42) +0
Massachusetts: Obama 50 (41) -9, Clinton 47 (56) +9
Missouri: Obama 50 (49) -1, Clinton 45 (48) +3
Tennessee: Obama 41 (41) -0, Clinton 52 (54) +2
New York: Obama 42 (40) -2, Clinton 56 (57) +1
New Jersey: Obama 52 (44) -8, Clinton 47 (54), +7
Arkansas: Obama 26 (27) +1, Clinton 71 (69) -2
Oklahoma: Obama 30 (31) +1, Clinton 61 (55) -6
Arizona: Obama 51 (42) -9, Clinton 45 (51) +6
New Mexico: Obama 52 (49) -3, Clinton 46 (48) +2
Utah: Obama 60 (57) -3, Clinton 40 (39) -1
California: Obama 46 (42) -4, Clinton 50 (52) +2

Kind of interesting that CA started down by as much as 20 points and ended up only with a 10 point difference. Many counties (not mine) switched to paper ballots because of distrust of electronic voting machines. It would be interesting if someone could do some homework and get vote totals for hand counted election day votes vs. machine counted tallies. Not counting absentee ballots with this amount would give us two samples to compare side by side. We're basically looking for the hand counted and machine counted votes of folks who actually voted election day.

One thing we know for sure is that the later reported votes tended to be heavier for Obama than the early reported ones just based on his percentage going up to 42%.

There may not be a difference, but I am curious.

One additional thought:

How does Obama lose by 10 points when the following is written:

Similarly in New Jersey on Tuesday, Democratic voters backed Clinton 51-47 while independents went with Obama 53-40.

http://www.huffingtonpos...-fallout-wh_n_85249.html

OK, so I'm getting caught up on the reading about the NP voter debacle in CA, complete with confused voters and uninformed poll workers.

Here's the simple deal: A voter walks into your precinct and you look him up on the roster. He registered as a non-partisan (declined to state).

So after he's signed in, you look him directly in the eye and recite the following: "You registered as a non-partisan voter, which means that, for this election, you must choose which one of three ballots you want to cast your votes on ... Democrat, American Independent, or non-partisan. Do you understand what that choice means?"

If the answer is "yes," you recite the following: "Which ballot do you want?"

If the answer is "no," you recite the following: "If you choose to vote on a Democrat ballot, then you will have the opportunity to vote for one of the presidential candidates who is running for the Democrat party. If you choose to vote on an American Independent ballot, then you will have the opportunity to vote for one of the candidates who is running for president for the American Independent party. If you choose to vote on a non-partisan ballot, then you will not have the opportunity to vote for any presidential candidate. Which ballot do you want?"

If there are further questions, then the voter may look through the voter guides offered at all polling places to learn who is running on which ballots, and to read about them.

It's just not that difficult, folks.

I am one of the people told specifically that I did not have to punch the Democratic Party bubble. Further, although I had proof of registration, my name was not on the list. As I was forced to fill out a provisional ballot, I filled in decline to state. The poll worker told me to just write 'independent.' I did not. I have blogged about this on my site. www.allaboutrace.com

I've been registered as a Democrat for over 20 years, yet when I received my absentee ballot, I was surprised to find that I was now registered as "Non-Partisan" and therefore not entitled to vote for any of the candidates. I assumed there must've been some hidden box on the absentee ballot request that I didn't see, because this the first time I ever encountered such a problem.

First I laughed it off that it must've been due to my own oversight; now I'm hearing that many others in Californa were similarly given the wrong party affiliation on their absentee ballots or when they went to the polling centers.

I'm fairly politically outspoken in my disgust of the Bush-Clinton dynasties through my emailings and the websites I visit, and am now wondering if somehow I was intentionally removed from Democratic Party affilitation.

This is a topic that needs further investigation.

Scott
Livermore, CA

Linda, that is how it SHOULD be done. Our registrar did not do it that way. Instead they got a non-partisan ballot with an extra box to check IF they wanted to vote for president. In addition, voters were not warned of this, even though at a meeting between election protection people in LA COunty and the Registrar's office two weeks ago, we pointed out that this method would cause huge confusion and undervotes. We also pointed out that each party's ballot was a different pastel color, very difficult to tell them apart. In the pollworker training videos these same ballots are clearly makred Democrat and Republican in huge bold black letters. We asked for assurance that the actual ballots had that bold printing on them. We were promised by the Registrar's right hand man that YES every ballot would have clear black writing stating the party. There was NO such labeling. The problems were obvious way before the election. They were NOT unforeseen problems.
In addition there were large purges of the voter roles.
it looks like there is an undervote for president in LA County of 11%. I'm not sure what average is, but I believe it is in the range of 3%. if anyone knows, please let us know.
Time for a hand count!

I’m glad someone else noticed the issue of Obama, grass roots, and winning the caucus states.

I watched ABC off and on last night and noted that throughout the night, they kept talking about Obama taking the caucus states and the “grassroots” organization that supposedly carried him to those wins.

Granted, you would need that when people have to be there in person to “vote.” But I find it hard to believe that the grassroots surge would not also apply to primary states where ballots are used. One of those “Huh?” moments.

According to the following sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

....Obama has won almost all of the caucus states except Nevada. New Mexico seems to be up in the air but I’ve seen one report giving New Mexico to Obama, which would be a huge upset, I would think, given the “conventional” thinking that the Latino vote will break for HRC. Even if Obama is close in New Mexico, it should raise some red flags.

As for Nevada, well, here goes the tin foil hat thing- Nevada has a large Mormon population. Just about guaranteed it would vote Romney. In the Democratic caucuses, you could register at the door and change party affiliation- which can be changed back after. According to stories there was cross over voting of disenchanted Republicans. The HRC camp made no friends when they tried to limit caucus sites that had been agreed upon months ago. Convention says those crossovers would never vote for HRC. Except I think the GOP would rather run against HRC than Obama. So IMHO, Nevada is enough of an anomaly to just ignore it when examining the caucus states.

But I have read elsewhere the HRC camp dissing caucuses. Something else to ponder.

Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, and Wyoming are the caucus states left, according to the wikipedia site. I don’t know who is projected to win those states at this time. It will be interesting to see if Obama continues winning in states where bodies are counted and not ballots by computerized vote counting machines.

Ohio and Texas are the big delegate states left and Ohio of course is worrisome and I don’t know what kind of Hybrid thing Texas does or how transparent it is.

I think the disparity in Obama winning caucuses vs. ballot states is as interesting as the switch in New Hampshire where he won hand counted counties vs. HRC winning the machine counted ones.

On another note, Diane Sawyer, (Never liked her) said that according to young people (Who appear to be turning out in droves so this is one of those things that makes you go, “Huh?” too) they would be more inclined to vote if they could vote ONLINE. To his credit, Stephanopoulos appeared to shoot her down but I didn’t get to hear all of it because someone took that moment to engage me in conversation. I’d like to think he put that idea where it belongs- in the trash heap.

Scott #15 … there were a lot of voters at my precinct who described the same scenario you described. They believed they were registered under a particular party, only to discover upon entering their polling place that they had been changed to non-partisan. In my county, there were always logical explanations for this scenario, involving situations such as they had moved and not notified the registrar of their new address and so the registrar couldn’t get ahold of them and they hadn’t voted since 1986 and blah blah blah and so the registrar kept them on the roster as non-partisan rather than removing them altogether, which at least gave them the opportunity to vote, in the event they turned up on election day. Upon close scrutiny, it turned out in every case that the voter had messed up somehow, overlooked something critical. It was never the case that the Registrar had just arbitrarily moved them from one category to another.

Every voter for whom this happened needs to call their local Registrar of Voters office and find out what their particular circumstances are, to rectify those circumstances, and to determine if indeed there was any roster purging/party manipulating that occurred.

I am confident that, in my county, these problems were legitimate. I’m not sure about LA County, as it appears from what I have read from various sources over the past several years that its Registrar of Voters is not as well-run, and may actually be engaging in fraudulent elections processes, whether they are aware of it or not. I know that is a huge accusation to make. But as far as I am concerned, as a citizen, as a voter, as a resident of CA, and as a poll worker who works and votes in a well-run jurisdiction, the onus is on THEM to clean up their act and serve their voters more competently. It is not up to the voters to defend their position, since LA County has problem after problem after problem after problem …

Phil #3. I can feel your frustration in your writing and I am a Canadian.
Your posts are heartbreaking at times and I wish that things were different but as Scott Ritter ( I am a huge fan of your Ritter)says in an interview with Larisa Alexandrovna in 2005...
[snip]
"Raw Story: Where do you see America, should things continue as is, in five years from now?

Ritter: At war, bankrupt morally and fiscally, and in great pain….and only half-way through the nightmare. Ten to twelve years is what we will have to get through, but we will get through it."
Scott Ritter

Phil, maybe going off and being creative for a couple of months will be good for your soul. I KNOW I will not read anymore political news if Hillary gets the nomination because it will be more of the same old, same old...from the artificial Hill.

#18 con't:
[snip]
"Ritter: Hillary is the manifestation of all that ails the Democratic Party. She stands for nothing. She has been compromised by her voting record ... how can she stand for anything worth supporting? And yet she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008, thus guaranteeing another neocon/Republican victory. 'Dump Hillary Now' would be the smartest move Dean could make as the new Democratic National Committee Chair. ... Like I said, it might take two or three cycles, but it will happen."

To quote Steve Martin. "I'm sorry but I'm pissed"

OT.It's taking a long time to get connected to bradblog today...at least 2-3 minutes. Is "someone" trying to stifle him?

char, BFFF6 Will not go there ...

Ok I lie, I'll go there. BFFF6 ...
Brad Friedman f@#%ing fearless

GWN ..I had to wait longer than usual too. Then couldn't even bring up John Gideon's blog.

i'm not one to encourage obama supporters to cry "voter fraud," but i voted in la county yesterday, and i was confused, and peeved, too.

luckily i did mark the double bubble, but i sure don't see the reason why i had to.

plus nobody at my polling place bothered to point that out to me when they handed me the ballot!

Linda #12, the point is that it shouldn't be difficult at all! I read a comment from an official yesterday (will look for the link) that the poll workers are "not required" or obligated to inform DTS and NP party voters of their option to vote in the Dem primary. The official said that voters needed to know that they had to ask.

I guess it comes down to what are reasonable expectations in the very complicated elections we have these days, where there are several dfferent pastel-colored paper ballots (I couldn't see the difference between the colors, but I'm told it's there), and different booths with different party designations, simply multiplies the entry points for error.

This is very illuminating, although these specific errors appear to be limited to the primary due to the party affiliation problem --- these specific errors don't seem to be applicable to the general election in November. But there will be likely be a whole new breed of errors there.

Phil! Please don't give up! Take a break. This a long haul journey, and pacing yourself is essential. When you give up, the bad guys win. Remember what Churchill said about never give up, never give up, never give up!

Put yourself on an internet news diet. Go create something beautiful, use a different part of your brain, go outside and remember dogs and children, flowers and grass, trees and mountains still exist completely independently of politics and the corruption. They will continue to exist, even if it feels like they are on the brink of being wiped out --- they are not. (try for a start)

PLEASE go create some art --- we could all use it.

Take a break from the news. We will keep an eye on things for you. Politics and all of this will still be here when you get back, of that you can be certain.

Have a peek at truthisall's analysis on John Gideons blog
[snip]
"Was it New Hampshire all over again? Once again the preliminary exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote. But this time, Hillary Clinton, not Bush, was the beneficiary of an unlikely one-sided shift from the exit poll to the vote."
truthisall

Re: "the poll workers are "not required" or obligated to inform DTS and NP party voters of their option to vote in the Dem primary. The official said that voters needed to know that they had to ask."

Yes, that is technically a true statement. But what a load of crap! If poll workers are not interested in informing voters of their options to vote, then why do they get up at 4:30 in the morning, work all day long from 6 a.m. to sometimes close to midnight, on election day?! They're certainly not doing it for the money. It's a community service, a labor of love.

I would love to learn who said that, and send them a piece of my mind.

It is very rewarding to work the polls on election day. You are in a unique position to help people navigate our sometimes complicated voting system. Why else would you do this if you had no interest in helping people learn how to do it, and then do it right?!

BTW, DTS and NP are the same thing.

And DES, primary elections ARE more complicated than other elections. Always have been. Always will be. This is because there are so many ballots (one for every party, plus NP, plus the usual mail-in and provisional ballots.)

#26 that sounds like our cable company saying "unless we notify them that we don't want the added channels" we will be charged for them. BTW They had to correct that and we didn't have to pay the extra fee.
Meet the "fockers", I'll screw if I can or until you catch me.

actually, my comment in #24 should say "try www.cuteoverload.com for a start."

Go on, give it a click....

Don't know if this has been brought up. Obama
wins all the caucuses by landslides on Tuesday, caucuses can't be as easilly rigged as other primaries. It seems to be that where rigging is
problematic Obama wins by a landslide. There is
no doudt in my mind that the election if being rigged for Clinton. The caucuses are probably
the most accurate gauge of voter preference.

Speaking of popping double bubbles with bullets, Senator Inouye (D-HI) cast his 15,000th vote in the Senate a short while ago.

He is a Japanese American, you know, the ones who were put in prison camps by "patriots" during WWII.

He advocated for a Japanese American unit and became a leader in that unit. It ended up being the most decorated unit in American Military history.

He vote "yes" to sunsetting FISA in 4 years ... if it passes. He is against the things he fought against ... totalitarianism.

Yet the senate leader Reid, required that there be 60 votes for it to pass. The vote was 49-46 ... so it would have passed but for Reidism.

What is Reid's f**king problem? How many dems are going to become demoCons?

As goes FISA so goes the nation ... already at the 8 count ... two to go ...

OMG, DES! My teeth ache from clicking on that!

Linda @ #26 --- "BTW, DTS and NP are the same thing."

Oh, thanks for correcting me! I was under the impression that they were two separate designations, which didn't make sense, but then so much else in the design of LA Co.'s doesn't make sense....

I can see having the 'double bubble' for statistical purposes --- I don't know the rationale behind that requirement, but I can understand somebody might've thought it'd be neat to track how many voters "crossed over" from DTS to vote for the Dems for statistical purposes.

But it defies logic that the precinct-level op-scan ballot readers are apparently NOT programmed to spit that ballot back out as an error when the 'double bubble' for a DTS voter is NOT filled in. (I am not a programmer, so perhaps there's a perfectly good reason for it on that particular system.) The double bubble doesn't appear on the Dem ballot.

Yet the central tabulator will apparently NOT COUNT any DTS ballot voting in the Dem primary unless the 'double bubble' is filled in. The whole point of the precinct-level op-scans (I thought) was to catch errors so the voter can correct them.

I wonder if anyone previously mentioned this disconnect in the programming for these two devices. I also wonder if the machines record any stats on how many ballots get spit back out at the precinct-level.

99 @ #32...

Yeah, I know!

It's perfect on those days when it seems like we're all "DOOMED".

JW: What was your source for these exit poll #s?

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
... JW said on 2/6/2008 @ 12:39 am PT...

Georgia: Obama -9, Clinton +5
Connecticut: Obama -1, Clinton +2
Illinois: Obama -6, Clinton +2
Alabama: Obama -6, Clinton +5
Delaware: Obama -3, Clinton +0
Massachusetts: Obama -9, Clinton +9
Missouri: Obama -1, Clinton +3
Tennessee: Obama -1, Clinton +2
New York: Obama -2, Clinton +1
New Jersey: Obama -8, Clinton +7
Arkansas: Obama +1, Clinton -2
Oklahoma: Obama +1, Clinton -6
Arizona: Obama -9, Clinton +6
New Mexico: Obama -5, Clinton +3
Utah: Obama -3, Clinton -1
California: Obama -7, Clinton +3

Most inaccurate exit polls by total point difference (all in Clinton's favor):

Massachusetts: 18 points
New Jersey: 15 points
Arizona: 15 points
Georgia: 14 points
Alabama: 11 points
California: 10 points
Illinois: 8 points

des, is that desi, the famous desi?

Re: "I can see having the 'double bubble' for statistical purposes --- I don't know the rationale behind that requirement, but I can understand somebody might've thought it'd be neat to track how many voters "crossed over" from DTS to vote for the Dems for statistical purposes."

Our county tracked this by having the poll workers indicate on the roster for every NP voter which ballot they were given. Next to the column on the roster for party affiliation, in the case of NP voters only, there was a column that included little boxes next to NP, Dem, or AI. The poll worker simply marked the box for whatever ballot was given to the voter.

If there's one thing any moron who's ever voted can figure out, it's this: Keep ballots as simple as possible. Voters represent a cross-section of our population. Some have had very little education. Some have less-than-great language skills. Not everyone is skilled at filling out forms, and believe me, that is a skill that those of us who made it through school long enough to graduate from high school have honed to a greater degree than those who have not. And if you were fortunate enough to go to college, well, you're even better at those dang forms. The ability to fill out a form successfully is not an intelligence indicator; it's a socialization indicator. Don't put stuff on to ballots for voters to deal with like that. All voters should have to do, once they get their ballot, is vote!

I can't say this enough. It's just not that hard to run good, honest, easy-to-follow elections, if that's what your goal is.

I voted in LA County. I have been registered as a Non-Partisan (i.e., Independent) since 2000, and there was no mistake with that. When I arrived at Seaside Elementary (my polling place) and asked to vote in the Democratic Primary, I was given a a clearly marked Non-partisan ballot and specific instructions to mark both the party bubble, and then my candidate choice. Kudos to my local poll workers.

However, I have to agree, this new methodology was screwy. In previous years, I asked to vote in the Dem Party primary, and I was given a Dem Party ballot, the same ballot a Dem voter was given. The simplicity wasn't broke, and did not need to be fixed. Glad to hear it was only a one county affair, and hopefully will be abolished next time.

With respect to someone else's comment that "American Independent" shouldn't be allowed as a name because it is too easy to confuse with "Independent", I respectfully disagree. I refuse to be a part of the shockingly large number of Americans who believe they deserve to live in a protective bubble and it is someone else's responsibility to protect them from the slightest thing that might require their neurons to fire.

I am a veteran pollworker and have experienced two closed primaries (not this year as I did exit polling). Eventually I'll write something up on Daily Kos doing the math on the double bubble problem. But this problem is endemic. The evidence is right on the Registrar's web site:

1. The reason the extra bubble is required is because ALL nonpartisan ballots are the same. When the voter walks in and announces a party, it is merely recorded on the roster next to the voter's name, by law, and the ballot clerk hands them a NP ballot and is supposed to show them to a Democratic or American Independent booth. Filling the bubble allows the computer to determine which primary they voted in, because the ballot positions for the AI and Democratic candidates are the same (8-10 for AI and 8-16 on the Democratic ballot). Thus, voter intent is going to be tricky for non-bubble fillers, since who's to say that, if they voted for a candidate in ballot positions 8-10, that they didn't want to vote in the American Independent primary? (If they voted for someone in positions 10-16, then intent would be clear. Remember that candidates rotate between each assembly district, but the 8-10 and 8-16 stay the same. Unfortunately Logan has pulled the sample ballots so I can't verify how many ballot positions there were.)

2. Yes, the American Independent Party is a really bad name. Here's how you check how confusing it is: look at the number of people that voluntarily choose to participate in the AI primary (by filling in the AI bubble), and look at the number of votes cast in the AI primary. Sometimes, there are more independents choosing to be AI than there are actual votes cast in the AI primary (in other words, people chose AI and didn't actually vote in the primary that they chose). It would be interesting to note the number of undervotes for the AI primary.

3. There were 85,000 Dem crossover voters in this primary, but in the 2000 blanket primary (where all individuals could vote for a list of all candidates on the nonpartisan ballot), there were 81,500 Democratic votes, and about 61,000 Republican votes. But the electorate has grown significantly since 2000, and the interest in this election is much higher among independents than the 2000 primary, which was essentially decided at this point.

4. The solution that still complies with state law is to simply hand nonpartisan voters that request a party ballot that party's ballot (instead of the special NP ballot); or, continue the existing process but change the ballot positions (so that Dem candidates are in the first column, Rep candidates are the second column, etc.... did you notice how many blank pages there were in this year's ballot?) so that there is no doubt of voter intent. It is not difficult to have the Republicans turn one or two pages before they start voting and you can have the computer scan for votes across multiple columns and reject those as being incorrect "blanket primary" votes. Ultimately, the blanket primary was a decent system, but it is illegal because of California Democratic Party v. Jones.

R/e comment # 2: "How can exit polls which are supposed to be based on what people actually just voted be so in favor of one candidate and so against another?"

Clinton campaign pollster Mark Penn's firm was paid $4.3 million by the campaign

Maybe he knows something.

Calwatch #39, I too am a veteran poll worker in Sonoma County, CA.

Re your #4, that is how we do it, and all the problems I am reading about now in other counties with top-bubbled ballots are non-existent in my county.

Those top-bubbled ballots were either added out of stupidity, or out of an intent to confuse NP voters.