Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Iowa Results Contested

January 6, 2012 by  

Iowa Results Contested

There may be an upset in store for the Iowa caucus results after one volunteer said the final tally reported for his county was wrong by 20 votes.

Edward True of Moulton, Iowa, said he helped count the votes and wrote the results on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. When he later checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find it hadn’t, according to KCCI 8 in Des Moines.

“When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,” True said. “Not Mitt Romney.”

True said Romney received only two votes from his 53-person caucus, but the State’s Republican Party website reported 22 votes for the candidate.

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and not a county chairperson, so he is not authorized to talk about election results. The party will not discuss discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

True said he is positive that his numbers are accurate.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Iowa Results Contested”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://deleted Claire

    A little hanky-panky going on?? Where there is smoke, there normally is fire. Why does this not surprise me? It is almost expected anymore.

    • ward weaver

      Wait until you see Wisconsin votes. It has a history of the most cheating state in the nation, even worse than Chicago. Walker will never get voter I D implemented. Wisconsin unions will not allow it to happen. Milwaukee and Madison are the only two non Republican countys but they control the vote.

    • libertytrain

      Claire – AMEN SISTER!
      and Ward, I think you are absolutely correct.

  • http://gillysrooms.blogspot.com GILLYSROOMS in Australia

    In Australia we Scrutineers at the counting of the votes…

    APPOINTMENT OF SCRUTINEERS
    4.1 Role of Scrutineers
    Candidates may appoint one or more scrutineers to represent them
    in observing procedures associated with the conduct of the election.
    Reg. 69
    Candidates must complete form LG 18 Appointment of Scrutineer
    to enable a scrutineer to be appointed. These forms are included in
    the Candidate’s Pack CD.
    Reg. Form 18
    A person must be at least 18 years of age to act as a scrutineer. The
    onus is on the candidate to ensure that the proposed scrutineer is
    eligible to be appointed.
    Reg. 69(2)
    Candidates can appoint any number of scrutineers, but not more
    than one scrutineer for each candidate per counting table (scrutiny)
    or for any other process (e.g. scanning or processing of electoral
    packages).
    Reg. 72(a)
    A person must not act as a scrutineer until he or she has signed a
    declaration in the prescribed form before either a Justice of the
    Peace, a person who has authority under the Oaths, Affidavits and
    Statutory Declarations Act 2005 to take statutory declarations or
    the Returning Officer.
    Reg. 69(4)
    Subject to the Returning Officer’s direction, candidates and
    scrutineers may be present when the votes are counted but
    candidates cannot scrutinise the count.

    Rights of Scrutineers
    The rights of a scrutineer in relation to an election are as follows:
    • to enter and be in any polling place specified in his or her notice
    of appointment at any time before the close of the poll. In a
    postal election a polling place is a place appointed for the
    delivery of votes;
    • to observe, while in the polling place, the conduct of the election
    and ascertain whether the Act and Regulations are being
    complied with;
    • to leave the polling place at any time;
    Reg. 71
    LGA s.4.71(1)(j)
    • to be present at the preparation of postal voting papers for
    counting, but only at a sufficient distance from the preparation
    process that the markings on the ballot papers cannot be
    ascertained by the scrutineers; and
    • to be present after the close of the poll when ballot boxes are
    opened and during the counting of the votes so as to observe all
    proceedings at the count.
    Reg. 52A
    4.4 Restrictions on Scrutineers
    A scrutineer:
    • is to comply with the restrictions imposed by section 4.89 of the
    Local Government Act 1995 as to conduct in or near polling
    places;
    LGA s.4.71(1)(j)
    Reg. 72
    A GUIDE FOR SCRUTINEERS – Local Government Postal Elections
    Page 6 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN Electoral Commission
    • is to comply with reasonable requests made by an electoral officer;
    • is to comply with directions given by the Returning Officer;
    • is not to record the name of a person who attends a polling place
    to vote;
    • is not to record any information given by a person to an electoral
    officer in order to receive a ballot paper; and
    • is not to be in any polling place specified in his or her notice of
    appointment if another scrutineer appointed by the same
    candidate is also there, except where one of them is there solely
    to cast or deliver his or her vote.

  • randy crawford

    (1) There are many procedural laxities in our Iowa Republican caucus system. The wizards may want no attention to be cast behind the curtain of Oz, but those of us who are little munchkins at the grassroots level can see as eyewitnesses what is going on. This is particularly true in urban areas when precincts are combined into crowds of hundreds of strangers milling about, and when the ballots are merely blank pieces of colored paper that anyone can easily counterfeit. In 2008, for instance, I saw my own ballot box being stuffed at a combined-precincts caucus by a fellow who tossed in a fistful of bogus ballots before darting away into the crowd. Later my own ballot, from that same ballot box, was physically stolen in the behind-the-scenes sorting room. I know this is true because when I received back my own single precinct’s sorted ballots for the counting, my ballot had disappeared. And to crown the 2008 farce, a county leadership official tried to hijack all the counts for Coralville’s 6 precincts so that he alone (not the individual precincts) could call the results in to the Republican state headquarters in Des Moines. This year I collected my precinct’s ballots without an admixture from other precincts, and verified (in front of 22 witnesses) what the correct count was– before anything went into the back counting room.

    (2) They didn’t know their “results” had already been pre-recorded and verified by us in Coralville Precinct 3. So, when their erroneous results were “reported” back to us in Coralville CV-03, the alterations were easy to spot and correct. A few minutes later on caucus night I called in to Des Moines Republican headquarters both the correct and false 2012 results, described as such, and noted today 1-7-12 that they have the correct totals posted on their public Internet spread sheet. Thanks to the 2008 experience it was possible to learn and limit the opportunities for vote hijacking in Coralville in 2012. In order to have tamper-proof voting, it would be desirable to have for the future (a) ballot boxes that are made of transparent plastic, and visibly empty before voting starts. A $5 plastic jar from Wal-Mart would work fine. (b) The lid needs to contain a small slit, so that voters can be witnessed putting in one ballot at a time only. (c) The ballots need to be not blank paper, but rather imprinted with individual precinct identification, and security features against counterfeiting would be a welcome plus. (d) The ballots need to be collected one precinct to a ballot box, not multiple precincts ludicrously mixed together and then “sorted” in some back room before counting. (e) As soon as the individual precinct does its own voting, the same group of people needs to count and tabulate its own votes out of its own ballot box.

    (3) For a small precinct everyone can gather around to check for honest counting. For a larger precinct, a lottery or a separate election can provide a dozen or two dozen witnesses to stand around the counting table and make sure the tally is honest. (f) Everyone in the precinct needs a chance to write down their own personal retained record of the witnessed count, and they need a website address so that later the next day or week they can verify their part of the statewide total is correct. (g) To prevent phantom voters from appearing at multiple precincts to make multiple votes, there should be no “quick vote and run” allowed, but rather everyone who votes should be required to start together at 7pm and then sit through the individual precinct’s procedural caucus falderal (tedious though it may be), until everyone votes together. At small group gatherings in Ma and Pa Kettle’s living room, a lot of the foregoing can be foregone because it applies to situations with anonymous crowds. But even with a small group where everyone knows everyone else, and everyone can see every ballot-handling move that is made out in the open, everyone still needs a chance to get their copy of the caucus tally. And they need a centralized Internet tabulation reference address so that within the next few days they can check up on the reliability of what is posted. END

  • s c

    Is it asking too much for people to do simple math and get it right the first time? If Iowa can do something like this, then maybe it’s possible that the coming election will result in more complaints concerning election-night ‘counting’ than ever before.
    Can we assume that no candidate will get more votes than there are registered voters in America? Frankly, I wouldn’t trust voting ‘machines’ to get accurate answers any more than dead people will show up with valid voter credentials. It pays to know who’s really voting, people.
    I wouldn’t rule out ghosts, teens and beings from other planets voting this time around. Integrity can be so fickle.

  • DaveH

    We have the power right now to make the vote counts quick and nearly fail-safe using Computer Databases – the same technology that allows businesses to keep track of their various actions.
    And we could have complete transparency without compromising ballot secrecy. Any voter could check to see whether his vote was counted correctly, and any voter (with the correct software) could count the votes of everybody to verify what was reported. We could also check easily to see if dead voters were voting, etc.
    Why isn’t such a system already implemented? Because it would be tamper-proof and the Leaders don’t want that.

  • hoser

    Anyone got a link to the Iowa precinct totals that the RNC used for the final tally’s? I was at precinct 29/34 in Sgt Bluff IA. I remember the final tally and we had exactly 300 voters.

  • vicki

    Were’t we warned that it is the vote COUNTER and not the voter who actually counts? Stalin I think.

    “You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”
    http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/dubiousquotes/a/stalin_quote.htm
    Posted near the word “Update” in that article.

  • ANDREW

    ANDREW SEYS THE OLD SAYING IS FROM THE COURTHOUSE TO THE WHITEHOUSE ALL IS CORRUPT. WHEN HONEST FAILES ALL ELSA FAILES SOONER OR LATER.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.