Political nobody wins SC Democratic US Senate nomination in strangest political upset of the year.

[CyclopticXander]

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/alvin-greene-south-carolina

This article poses a question many of us in South Carolina are asking tonight, who the heck is Alvin Greene?

To call this an upset is a bit of an understatement. And before you assume this may be another case of the supposed anti-establishment fever sweeping the nation, take note that nobody has ever even seen this supposed candidate and the leading theory is that people just blindly voted for the first name alphabetically. He was so nervous and obviously unprepared when the media came to him for comment that he could only speak in unintelligible gibberish.

I've never seen anyone express any kind of dissatisfaction with Vic Rawl, who obviously had a well put together campaign. There was never a moment of doubt that he would beat the guy who didn't even have a campaign website, well it looks like the joke is on us. Sources say the Demint people are falling asleep tonight with giant grins on their faces.

So do people really vote randomly in races they know nothing about? Can someone really be the victim of a bad name in the nomination for a position as high profile as US Senator? I'd understand if this as a party runoff for railroad commissioner or neighborhood dog catcher, but come on!

Can some of you politically astute people please tel me what the heck just happened?

[Jonathan Chance]

It's weird, don't get me wrong. But it's not like it matters. DeMint will walk away with that one regardless of who the D nominee is.

[joebuck20]

Damn, reading that story, he makes Sarah Palin sound like George Plimpton.

"It wasn’t much, I mean, just, it was—it wasn’t much. Not much, I mean, it wasn’t much," he said, when asked how much of his own money he spent in the primary. Greene frequently spoke in rapid-fire, fragmentary sentences, repeating certain phrases or interrupting himself multiple times during the same sentence while he searched for the right words. But he was emphatic about certain aspects of his candidacy, insisting that details about his campaign organization, for instance, weren't relevant. "I'm not concentrating on how I was elected—it's history. I’m the Democratic nominee—we need to get talking about America back to work, what's going on, in America."


I'm sure Sen. Demint is probably laughing his ass off right now, but in a race which he was likely to win anyway, it's not like it mattered who the Democratic nominee was going to be.

[Bricker]

South Carolina Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler speculated that Greene won because his name appeared first on the ballot, and voters unfamiliar with both candidates chose alphabetically.

Aaron Aaronson, your country needs you.

[Ponch8]

Aaron Aaronson, your country needs you.

The biggest gossip in town, along with Mr. Zykowski.

[Mr. Excellent]

Not cool, Mr. Greene. Not cool. Even if Demint's a shoe-in for this race - if you weren't prepared to be a capable, articulate spokesman for the Democratic Party, you had no business seeking the nomination.

[Kolga]

South Carolina politics continues to be the laughingstock of America. Joe "you lie" Wilson, state Senator Jake Knotts calling President Obama and gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (Tea Party favorite accused of two different affairs) ragheads, the aforementioned Haley, and now this.

Just another in a long line of utterly bogus and mindbogglingly stupid South Carolina political events.

[Ravenman]

Not cool, Mr. Greene. Not cool. Even if Demint's a shoe-in for this race - if you weren't prepared to be a capable, articulate spokesman for the Democratic Party, you had no business seeking the nomination.From the article, he appears to have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to win the nomination other than putting his name on the ballot. If a professional politician can't beat someone who does nothing to win the primary, then they have only themselves to blame.

I think it is more embarrassing for Vic Rawl to be beaten by this complete unknown than it would be to be beaten by a dead man. At least a dead man gets his name in the paper. Mr. Greene can't even get his name in the obituaries.

Does anyone know if South Carolina has open or closed primaries?

[Mr. Excellent]

From the article, he appears to have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to win the nomination other than putting his name on the ballot. If a professional politician can't beat someone who does nothing to win the primary, then they have only themselves to blame.

I think it is more embarrassing for Vic Rawl to be beaten by this complete unknown than it would be to be beaten by a dead man. At least a dead man gets his name in the paper. Mr. Greene can't even get his name in the obituaries.

Does anyone know if South Carolina has open or closed primaries?

Agreed, Rawl is to blame for losing this thing. Greene, however, is to blame for winning it when he knew or should have known that he didn't have what it takes to run a real campaign.

[Duke]

I'm sure Sen. Demint is probably laughing his ass off right now, but in a race which he was likely to win anyway, it's not like it mattered who the Democratic nominee was going to be.

DeMint is favored to win, sure, but even in South Carolina he hasn't won by impressive margins in the past. As I mentioned in the "potential 2012 GOP candidates" thread, in 2006 he actually lost the first Republican primary, then won the runoff primary, and in the general election he couldn't even take a double-digit win, in one of the redder states in the country. It's a stretch to say DeMint is vulnerable, but he was not expected to win by landslide margins either.

This is truly a weird story. Almost like Head of State, but with the candidate being nowhere near as funny as Chris Rock.

[Gyrate]

South Carolina politics continues to be the laughingstock of America. Joe "you lie" Wilson, state Senator Jake Knotts calling President Obama and gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley (Tea Party favorite accused of two different affairs) ragheads, the aforementioned Haley, and now this.You forgot Mark "hiking the Appalachian Trail" Sanford and Andre "poor people are like animals" Bauer. South Carolina is gaining on Glenn Beck in the "Most Appearances on The Daily Show" competition.

And of course it's always worth mentioning the guy with the horse (Twice! With the same horse!).

[Simplicio]

Not cool, Mr. Greene. Not cool. Even if Demint's a shoe-in for this race - if you weren't prepared to be a capable, articulate spokesman for the Democratic Party, you had no business seeking the nomination.

I dunno, everyones always grumbling that we could pull random people off the street and they'd be better then our current crop of politicians, now we have.

I kinda hope someone helps Mr Greene make a go of it. He won't win unless DeMint gets caught giving blow-jobs in the mens room, but you figure the national party can make some hay out of the guys story (thirteen year military veteran returns to the US in the middle of the Recession, can't get a break, decides to make a quixotic run for office), especially in the current anti-elitist environment.

[CyclopticXander]

From the article, he appears to have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to win the nomination other than putting his name on the ballot. If a professional politician can't beat someone who does nothing to win the primary, then they have only themselves to blame.

I think it is more embarrassing for Vic Rawl to be beaten by this complete unknown than it would be to be beaten by a dead man. At least a dead man gets his name in the paper. Mr. Greene can't even get his name in the obituaries.

Does anyone know if South Carolina has open or closed primaries?

Well see I'd been following the race a little, and I really don't see what else Vic Rawl could have done. He was an entirely qualified candidate and his campaign was competent and focused. He traveled around plenty, wasn't really objectionable in any way, his online presence was decent with arms on Facebook and Twitter. Anyone who took a moment of observation in the race knew there was a serious candidate and one guy who nobody could even find any information on, Alvin Greene may as well have been Bigfoot as far as visibility was concerned.


The only thing I can think is that the race was so low profile and people so apathetic and uninformed that they picked at random in the voting booth. I've seen this phenomenon before, I even did it myself in my first few elections until I wised up and realized that was a terrible thing to do. Basically you go to the ballot knowing a race or two you are interested in, but there are all these extra contests you don't know about so treat it like a multiple choice test that you are trying to complete before the time is up. The correct thing to do in that situation of course is just leave those spots blank, but many people don't even realize you can do that.

Still though, most people involved in politics know that this happens and can account for some scattershot votes, but to actually decide a party nomination for US Senate of all things? Something doesn't seem right here at all.

South Carolina has an open primary. Obviously the majority votes on the Republican ballot, especially at a time like this when the R side was especially attention grabbing with several key races people wanted to vote on, I suspect it even drug away a number of our Democrats who wanted to have a say in the headline races. The Republican ballot was pretty long and even had a few policy questions on the ballot, the Democratic ballot was pretty boring let me tell you, there were three low profile races on mine, none of them very contested or interesting. So yea there was a pretty shallow pool of voters here, probably had something to do with the result.

[Kolga]

You forgot Mark "hiking the Appalachian Trail" Sanford and Andre "poor people are like animals" Bauer.

Yea, I figured those were so well-known they went without saying. I'm not sure how many people knew about the "raghead" comment, though.

South Carolina is gaining on Glenn Beck in the "Most Appearances on The Daily Show" competition.

I'm so proud of my home state.

And of course it's always worth mentioning the guy with the horse (Twice! With the same horse!).

I think that guy is from Georgia.

[Gyrate]

I think that guy is from Georgia.Nope. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_south_carolina_man_busted_for_having_sex_with_horse.html) To quote Jon Stewart, "world's most alluring horse".

Back on topic: it'll be interesting to see what Mr Greene does next with the weight of the party behind him and presumably a bit more money to spend. I'm guessing the DNC will at least get the guy a new suit and a PR coach.

[BrainGlutton]

South Carolina . . . It's nice to know somebody is there to make Florida politics look good! :D

[obfusciatrist]

Didn't Eddie Murphy already make this movie?

[Marley23]

Back on topic: it'll be interesting to see what Mr Greene does next with the weight of the party behind him and presumably a bit more money to spend. I'm guessing the DNC will at least get the guy a new suit and a PR coach.
I'm sure they'll back him, but I'm thinking the DNC is not going to spend too much money or time on a hopeless race. State organizations might do more for the guy but the DNC will probably do the bare minimum. What a weird story.

[Simplicio]

I'm sure they'll back him, but I'm thinking the DNC is not going to spend too much money or time on a hopeless race. State organizations might do more for the guy but the DNC will probably do the bare minimum. What a weird story.

He's enough of a novelty, though, to be able to get a decent amount of buzz and name-recognition without having to actually pay for TV ads and the like. And you figure there must be some just starting-out political operatives out there who would work for cheap to have the chance to run a (admittedly doomed) Senatorial Campaign rather then having to spend the season as a low level functionary on a "real" campaign. Assuming the guy turns out to be relatively sympathetic (and who knows, he might turn out to be a rabid anti-semite, or have some crazy pet conspiracy theory or something, which would obviously necessitate the party ditching him), he could give the national party some good press, and make the GOP spend some money on an otherwise safe senate seat, even if he never gets close to winning.

The guy that ran Fred Tuttle's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Tuttle) campaign could make a doucumentray out of it and help make it worth Greene's while.

[An Arky]

Open Primary, natch. Hoo boy, them 'ol boys pulled a goodun', votin' fer (someone they perceive to be a) Stepin Fetchit. HAW HAW HAW, they done messed with them commie faggots in Warshington now!

[An Arky]

Seriously, in a not-too-hot primary in a not-so-big state, somebody can win just by nailing a couple of key districts, so I'd say it's a vagary of party primary politics and non-compulsary elections, among other things...

[CyclopticXander]

Well the plot thickens.
http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88409&catid=2

Dude's got a pending felony charge. Great. It'd sure be interesting to be a fly on the wall at a state party meeting right now. I know there was only a 5% chance of the Demint losing anyway, but dammit I wanted my 5% chance!

[Oakminster]

Well the plot thickens.
http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88409&catid=2

Dude's got a pending felony charge. Great. It'd sure be interesting to be a fly on the wall at a state party meeting right now. I know there was only a 5% chance of the Demint losing anyway, but dammit I wanted my 5% chance!

From the link:

He's accused of showing Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. The felony charge carries up to five years in prison.

WTF kinda crime is that? If the gal is in college, she's most likely old enough to see porn and/or copulate at will.

[joebuck20]

Well the plot thickens.
http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88409&catid=2

Dude's got a pending felony charge. Great. It'd sure be interesting to be a fly on the wall at a state party meeting right now. I know there was only a 5% chance of the Demint losing anyway, but dammit I wanted my 5% chance!

An obscenity charge - that's going to sting.

[Duke]

WTF kinda crime is that? If the gal is in college, she's most likely old enough to see porn and/or copulate at will.

This was South Carolina. Judging by Gyrate's post earlier, this could be a Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino* thing.

*Yes, that is officially his name now. Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino.

[BigT]

An obscenity charge - that's going to sting.

You know they aren't going to play up that portion of it. The word felony is in there, and that's going to hurt. What might be useful is to use it to bar him from the full race, putting Vic Rawl back in if the DNC thinks he has better chances. Then again, if people would rather vote for a complete unknown rather than you, I'd guess you aren't well liked.

[Oakminster]

This was South Carolina. Judging by Gyrate's post earlier, this could be a Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino* thing.

*Yes, that is officially his name now. Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino.

:eek::eek:
Let the record reflect that I said "Eww" in as masculine a manner as possible.

[hajario]

This is hilarious, or it would be if..... nah, it's still hilarious.

BTW, he's not going to get squat from the DNC unless his poll numbers are good enough. A good friend of mine was the Dem candidate for Congress a few years back in a district where the GOP candidate has handily won for decades. He was told that he would get money for having poll numbers at a certain level at certain times. He did get lots of free advice from some high profile people but that was it at the national level.

[Chronos]

I'm not sure I buy the "voting randomly" or "voting alphabetically" argument. I'd expect that the sorts of people who would turn out for an off-year primary election would be at least somewhat informed on the candidates (even if that "information" consists of just knowing who their media of choice told them to vote for), and US Senator has to be pretty close to the top of the ballot. I'd think that the people who genuinely didn't know who either candidate was, or who didn't care, would just stay home.

The only scenario that seems plausible to me is that this was driven by cross-party votes from folks who actually support DeMint, and want him to face the weakest opposition possible.


The whole thing reminds me of the US Representative general election here in Montana, two years ago. The Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent Denny Rehberg literally spent zero dollars on his campaign. He had no ads, no fliers, even his official campaign website was on a free webhost. If he had any sort of word-of-mouth operation going, it was a pretty pathetic one, given that it didn't even penetrate to this college town. He didn't win, but he did manage to take about a third of the vote, which says to me that a third of Montanans will either blindly vote for whichever name has a D next to it, or really hate Rehberg.

[CyclopticXander]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/alvin-greene-surprise-win-south-carolina-primary-felony/story?id=10867602&page=2

Apparently he was kicked out of the army as well, unflattering stuff is coming out pretty quickly now since candidates thought to have no chance of winning don't get vetted that well.

A Columbia station did an interview with him today that they will be airing tonight, so we'll have some video soon to see just how trainwrecky the situation is.

[CyclopticXander]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/south-carolina-dems-call-on-greene-to-drop-out-of-senate-race.php

And even crazier, the party is now asking him to step down. Just bizarre.

[Oakminster]

I dunno anything about Rawl, but he's gotta be feeling like something the cat did and forgot to cover up about now.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I haven't stopped laughing since I read this.

BTW how many senators from south carolina have been black felons?

[Marley23]

BTW how many senators from south carolina have been black felons?
South Carolina has never had a black senator, so I'm going to guess the number is approximately zero.

[Snowboarder Bo]

This was South Carolina. Judging by Gyrate's post earlier, this could be a Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino* thing.

*Yes, that is officially his name now. Carl "HORSE PORN" Paladino.

I heard he prefers Carl "INTERSPECIES EROTICA" Paladino. And Randall says the horse's name is Kelly.

[waterj2]

I haven't stopped laughing since I read this.

BTW how many senators from south carolina have been black felons?I'm pretty sure that even implying such a thing about a South Carolina senator would get one savagely beaten with a cane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_assault).

[Peremensoe]

WTF kinda crime is that? If the gal is in college, she's most likely old enough to see porn and/or copulate at will.

It has nothing to do with her age. You're not allowed to go around showing pornography to adults against their will.

[Steve MB]

I think that guy is from Georgia.
Nope. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/29/2009-07-29_south_carolina_man_busted_for_having_sex_with_horse.html) To quote Jon Stewart, "world's most alluring horse".

The Georgia one (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/quote-of-the-day/05/01/mule-sex-secession-watermelon-fucking-all-in-a-days-work/) was a mule.

[Jormungandr]

A complete unknown who didn't campaign, give a speech or make any signs wins the South Carolina Democratic Senate race. After giving the party a shock (the leading, now defeated, candidate, Vic Rawl, was readying for the general election), it was discovered that Alvin Greene has a pending felony charge. Supposedly, he has refused to withdraw from the race. OK, so what can the South Carolina Democratic Party do?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Eh, just run him. If he won the primary without campaigning at all imagine what he'll do to Jim DeMint*.

*assuming DeMint's oh-so-predictable gay sex scandal** breaks before he gets re-elected.

**yes, I'm serious.

[CyclopticXander]

Here's some video, because you just have to see this with your own eyes.

http://www.wistv.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=4857066&h1=Democratic%20party%20asks%20surprise%20Senate%20candidate%20to%20withdraw%2C%20Drew%20Stewart%20r eports&vt1=v&at1=Political&d1=112167&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=36830072

He'll probably be edged out, if not though he says he looks forward to having a televised debate with Demint, and that is something I think we all need to see.

[septimus]

Has the result been compared with exit polls as a sanity check?

Florida's famous "butterfly ballot" was a real problem. Machine fraud and malfunction are real problems; could something like that be at work here?

[What the .... ?!?!]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/south-carolina-dems-call-on-greene-to-drop-out-of-senate-race.php

And even crazier, the party is now asking him to step down. Just bizarre.

I'm sure that Rahm can find a little something for him to do. Don't they have some positions to fill since Sestak and the Colorado guy both turned them down.

[Gyrate]

I'm sure that Rahm can find a little something for him to do. Don't they have some positions to fill since Sestak and the Colorado guy both turned them down.
[Rob Schneider]

Makin' the copies...

[/Rob Schneider]

[CyclopticXander]

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/alvin-greene-felony-charge-camille-mccoy

The mother of the victim on a crusade to derail his candidacy. Very interesting article.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I thought it was traditional for the mods to explain that they merged threads when they merge threads.

[Marley23]

I merged Jormungandr's thread into this one, which started yesterday.

EDIT: Hold your horses, Really Not All That Bright. ;)

[Really Not All That Bright]

In b4 explanation! ;)

[Spit]

What happened to tolerance? What horrors did those folks endure that made them so demented as to have relations with an animal?

I suspect someone in the GOP realized the way the ballots would be printed, found a rube, gave him 10k, and told him to go be the everyman candidate. Nice protection against incumbent backlash.

ETA: Besides, the guy is already learning the world of politics!

"The people have spoken. We need to be pro-South Carolina, not anti-Greene." -Alvin Greene

[Peremensoe]

Even if the guy was a plant or rube of the South Carolina Republicans--apparently a hundred thousand people voted for him, an eighteen-point margin.*

I also don't buy that such a thing happens only by random or alphabetic effect. There had to have been a substantial number of people voting against the other guy, if only on the basis that they sort of recognized his name as being that of a politician; Rawl's own campaigning might have hurt him!

This was literally a vote for nobody.

Well, either that, or a vote for Love and Happiness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cwYpefWD3Y). :cool:

Does anyone have a link for actual/original reporting on what has been repeated (verbatim, without names) in several recent articles, that
Republican place markers in Palmetto State Democratic primaries are campaign legend.

In the early ‘90s, a Republican strategist was prosecuted and forced to pay a fine when he was found to have coaxed an unemployed black fisherman into running in a primary race to increase white turnout at the polls in a Lowcountry congressional race. The political operative paid the man’s filing fee.


* We think; is there any physical record of votes in SC?

[CyclopticXander]

Alright here's the inevitable train wreck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFN7ZkjgkA

Just...Holy Cow.

[Jophiel]

I guess it's just piling on at this point but this interview was so painfully bad I couldn't help but laugh.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/06/mystery-candidate-says-no-one.html

[Death of Rats]

I dunno, everyones always grumbling that we could pull random people off the street and they'd be better then our current crop of politicians, now we have.

I kinda hope someone helps Mr Greene make a go of it. He won't win unless DeMint gets caught giving blow-jobs in the mens room...

That was what the Rawl people were thinkin three days ago. Will his guy be ahead of DeMint on the ballot? We could be looking at the next Senator from SC! :eek:

It will be interesting to find out how the unemployeed guy got the $10000 to get on the ballot in the first place. i wonder if he will turn out to have had "help" with this win.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Just watched Olberman interview Mr. Greene. Weird, weird, weird interview.

The guy could not seem more unsure of himself. Keith was uncharacteristically restrained and lobbed nothing but softball questions at him.

I'm not ready to call him a plant but something sure seems off with this guy.

[joebuck20]

Alright here's the inevitable train wreck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFN7ZkjgkA

Just...Holy Cow.

Wow :eek:. That was painful. It reminds of that Miss South Carolina contestant a few years back who rambled on about maps and "U.S. Americans." It's almost like listening to Rain Man. The Democratic establishment there needs to put as much distance as possible between themselves and this guy.

[njtt]

EDIT: Hold your horses, Really Not All That Bright. ;)

I am not sure it is wise to be using that metaphor in this thread. :p

[Biggirl]

What a bunch of racist idiots they got there in South Carolina. Here's a follow up on this in a local paper. (http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jun/10/strange-twist-in-senate-race/)

Greene didn't file financial disclosures because he didn't think he needed to since he spent less than $5000 on his campaign, being too stupid to realize that the filing fee alone is more than twice that.

But the bit that got me is from a Democratic state senator who said, and I quote, "Vic Rawl had money, but he didn't have enough. He wasn't able to identify himself with black voters," Ford said. "No white folks have an 'e' on the end of Green. The blacks after they left the plantation couldn't spell, and they threw an 'e' on the end."

And then he fucked a zebra.

[OneChance]

It will be interesting to find out how the unemployeed guy got the $10000 to get on the ballot in the first place.Maybe by saving it up when he had a job? Is that really hard for people to understand?

[Biggirl]

I want to add, just in case anyone thought different, that just because he's black doesn't mean he can't be a stupid racist. A real life Uncle Ruckus. He probably doesn't have sex with zebras, though.

[Maus Magill]

Maybe by saving it up when he had a job? Is that really hard for people to understand?

Then he wouldn't have qualified for the public defender's office.

Something's rotten in Denmark.

[OneChance]

Then he wouldn't have qualified for the public defender's office.I don't think it's as simple as how much money he had in the bank. If his entire net worth is $10,000, and he was recently unemployed, then a felony charge is brought against him, would he then be eligible for a public defender since he has no income and very limited assets? All someone needs to do is contact The South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense and find out how he qualified for a public defender, but I guess it's more fun to speculate.

[Spit]

Then he wouldn't have qualified for the public defender's office.

Something's rotten in Denmark.

Don't you mean Greeneland?


Well, it was funny to me.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

100K votes? Easy, we were just really excited that that we might be represented by a legendary singer.

[Rhythmdvl]

And of course it's always worth mentioning the guy with the horse (Twice! With the same horse!).I think that guy is from Georgia.
The Georgia one (http://www.prosebeforehos.com/quote-of-the-day/05/01/mule-sex-secession-watermelon-fucking-all-in-a-days-work/) was a mule.
Hold your horses, Really Not All That Bright. ;)


Tradition!

[StusBlues]

OK, this question must be asked:

How does Alvin Greene compare to Sarah Palin?

[joebuck20]

OK, this question must be asked:

How does Alvin Greene compare to Sarah Palin?

Personally I think the GOP planted this guy to prove that it was in fact possible for the Democrats to field a candidate who was dumber than Sarah Palin. Say what you will about her, but at least she's capable of forming a complete sentence and a delivering a somewhat coherent (if bullshitty) explanation of her views.

[Death of Rats]

She is able to form sentances but they are rarly complete and have yet to be coherent, joebuck20, and the other major difference is the the Democrats are running from this guy like he is plutonium, while the Republicans elected Sarah Palin twice and nominated her for the second highest political post in the country.

I bet this guy can name one magazine he reads, though :D

[Captain Midnight]

I am all for "regular people" trying to win office, but this Alvin Greene is one for the books.
The poor man is slow developmentally. Really. His I.Q. of about 78. His interview with Keith Olbermann was very laughable to say the least. This guy doesn't even know what a Senator does, and I honestly doubt this man knows anything at all about government.

But he is a college graduate. He has been in the military. He has travelled abroad. He's been inside a South Carolina jail and understands the legal system. Still, the man is retarded. And the retarded should not be allowed in public office (George W. Bush and Dan Quayle no exceptions.)

[Rhythmdvl]

I bet this guy can name one magazine he reads, though :DErm, if you consider his arrest, you may want to say he can name one magazine he looks at.

[joebuck20]

Erm, if you consider his arrest, you may want to say he can name one magazine he looks at.

Hustler?

[Spit]

His interview with Keith Olbermann was very laughable to say the least.


Poor Keith- He was so conflicted during that interview. He really wanted to tear in to the guy, but the slim chance he might be a democrat wouldn't allow it

[Maus Magill]

Erm, if you consider his arrest, you may want to say he can name one magazine he looks at.

Yes... but would you want him to?

[DanBlather]

But the bit that got me is from a Democratic state senator who said, and I quote, "Vic Rawl had money, but he didn't have enough. He wasn't able to identify himself with black voters," Ford said. "No white folks have an 'e' on the end of Green. The blacks after they left the plantation couldn't spell, and they threw an 'e' on the end."I thought this was a joke until I checked the link. Is it too late to lose the Civil War?

BTW, the spelling of Greene goes back to Anglo Saxon times in England.

[tumbleddown]

Poor Keith- He was so conflicted during that interview. He really wanted to tear in to the guy, but the slim chance he might be a democrat wouldn't allow it
I think it was more his sense of decency that wouldn't allow it; you don't tear into someone who clearly doesn't have the capacity to mount their own defense. It's unseemly and unnecessary. Greene was the architect of his own demise in the interview, he didn't need any additional goring from Olbermann to speed the process along.

[Jophiel]

Hustler?
Highlights.

[Jonathan Chance]

And 538 begins to get interested in the outcome...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/something-fishy-in-south-carolina.html

[Peremensoe]

BTW, the spelling of Greene goes back to Anglo Saxon times in England.

And it is the spelling used by Nathanael Greene, a hero of the Revolution in the South (though he was from Rhode Island), and the namesake of several towns and counties. Also, Greene Street in downtown Columbia SC, two blocks from the State House, the address of several government-related buildings, and a street which Robert Ford surely has had to cross in the course of being a state senator.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Racist State Senator Robert Ford (http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html):D

[Biggirl]

Racist State Senator Robert Ford (http://www.scstatehouse.gov/members/bios/0606818109.html):D

He even looks like Uncle Ruckus.

[Bricker]

So, does anyone who is advancing the "Republicans voted for Greene as a coordinated spoiler effort" theory have an explanation for how they mobilized that many people without a single leak?

[Peremensoe]

Is anyone advancing that theory?

Greene may or may not be a Republican plant, but I think we have to conclude that he was selected by Democratic primary voters for their own reasons.

[Biggirl]

So, does anyone who is advancing the "Republicans voted for Greene as a coordinated spoiler effort" theory have an explanation for how they mobilized that many people without a single leak?

I believe there is an equal chance that the Democrats got gamed hard or that 100,000 South Carolinians of all races (check the 538 info) voted for a retarded black guy they never heard of. Political shenanigans or really stupid people, neither would surprise me.



ETA: I'm leaning a little towards stupid people. The state senator is advancing the theory that black people voted for the black guy because slaves were too dumb to know how to spell 'green'.

[Ají de Gallina]

Is it too late to lose the Civil War?

Might you be the first person to utter this phrase?

[Peremensoe]

From a FiveThirtyEight commenter,

Here is a radical thought from a fellow statistician. Maybe some voters actually preferred Alvin Greene's political views over Vic Rawl's. On May 25, GreenvilleOnline.com did some shockingly unusual journalism, by actually reporting the political views of the candidates. For example, they reported that "Alvin Greene is for wrapping up the wars in the Middle East and using that money for domestic programs, such as job creation, education and Social Security.", while his primary opponent Vic Rawl is "not happy with the situation in Afghanistan but said he understands it", whatever that means.

Suppose you were a Democratic voter in South Carolina, and this item (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100525/NEWS/305250032/Former-judge-newcomer-challenge-for-Senate) was your information source going into primary day.

A vote for Greene doesn't seem patently ridiculous, does it?

[joebuck20]

From a FiveThirtyEight commenter,



Suppose you were a Democratic voter in South Carolina, and this item (http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100525/NEWS/305250032/Former-judge-newcomer-challenge-for-Senate) was your information source going into primary day.

A vote for Greene doesn't seem patently ridiculous, does it?

That would make sense if other media outlets around the state did similar stories or if he had scored big just in Greenville. But he scored big all over the state, and let's face it, not many people outside Greenville are reading Greenville Online. Where I live, I read the local paper and occasionally one of the papers from the state's other major cities, but only rarely if ever glance at the local papers from the state's small to mid-sized cities. I suppose one could make the case that those who were interested in the race and finding out more about Alvin Greene somehow stumbled across this one bit of information that was floating around about him before the election, but can that really account for his lopsided victory?

[Peremensoe]

...can that really account for his lopsided victory?

No, not by itself.

My theory is that some people voted for Greene and a bunch voted against Rawl.

And I'm not sure this was, categorically, a stupid thing for them do--voting for a random unknown as a rejection of an uninspiring actual politician.

[Cyberhwk]

So, does anyone who is advancing the "Republicans voted for Greene as a coordinated spoiler effort" theory have an explanation for how they mobilized that many people without a single leak?I don't think much of anybody is advancing that theory. You have to declare a party in South Carolina and the Republican Gubernatorial Primary was a very heated contest. I highly doubt anybody would forgo a critical contest just to screw with the Democratic side.

Alvin Green is under felony indictment, is represented by a public defender, and is currently unemployed. People are questioning how he even came up with the $10,400 filing fee, nevertheless WON. For sure something's seriously strange here.

Seriously WAG: How about some hacker blowing the whistle on voting machine security? Kind to think of it, Anonymous has been rather quiet lately... ;)

[legalsnugs]

I don't think it's as simple as how much money he had in the bank. If his entire net worth is $10,000, and he was recently unemployed, then a felony charge is brought against him, would he then be eligible for a public defender since he has no income and very limited assets? All someone needs to do is contact The South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense and find out how he qualified for a public defender, but I guess it's more fun to speculate.

That was the first place I looked. To qualify for a public defender, he would have had to be "financially unable to hire an attorney."

Q. I am working. Can I still qualify for the Public Defender?

A. That depends on your income and your entire financial situation. A number of factors are considered, including but not limited to: the number of people in your household, whether you own any real estate, or have money in the bank etc. All of these factors are weighed by the office that screens applications for the Public Defender. In most cases, this decision can also be appealed to the Court.
Cite (http://www.sccid.sc.gov/indigent-defense-faq.cfm).

However, the very next question is:

Q. I make too much money for the Public Defender but I cannot afford to hire a private attorney. What can I do?

A. If it is determined that you are financially able to hire an attorney but you still want the Public Defender to represent you, then the Public Defender can be appointed to your case. After your case is completed, the court will determine the amount of attorney’s fees that should be paid to the local Public Defender Corporation.

Mr. Greene has a public defender, Spencer S. Beckman. Mr. Greene lives with his father and is unemployed (I have not seen whether he is receiving unemployment benefits, but since he was involuntarily released from the service, and not dishonorably discharged, I would bet that he is). But if he had $10,400 in his bank account (to be able to write a personal check for the filing fee), then it seem clear to me that he was financially able to hire an attorney. There are a TON of people needing and applying for public defenders in SC who have zero income and zero savings who are denied simply because there are too many of them and not nearly enough public defenders. In addition, all SC lawyers are assigned pro bono cases by the courts to handle the overflow (I used to practice there), and still the need is great. If he was on the pay-later plan, that could explain his bank account, but I'm pretty sure the courts would look askance at his using that money for something besides his lawyer.

Yes, this is a puzzle and I hope it is thoroughly investigated.

[Drain Bead]

I know it's the South and things are different, but I can't help but still be shocked by the fact that the victim in the obscenity case was quoted in that MJ article calling him "boy."

[Peremensoe]

I know it's the South and things are different, but I can't help but still be shocked by the fact that the victim in the obscenity case was quoted in that MJ article calling him "boy."

That's not necessarily a racial remark, if that's what you mean. White women call white men "boys," as well, especially in the construction "he's a big boy."

[septimus]

This is truly a weird story.

Especially given the $10,000 filing fee for a rather poor person. Will this story die out, or get more exciting before November?

The only hypothesis I've come up with (and, No, I'm not really serious) is that this derives from some sort of Back to the Future adventure. Alvin Greene III must become President in 2068, his political career hinges on his grandfather's Senate seat, and some Time Traveller is taking corrective measures. :dubious:

[Drain Bead]

That's not necessarily a racial remark, if that's what you mean. White women call white men "boys," as well, especially in the construction "he's a big boy."

The only time I've ever said construction that is in the context of athletics, and even then only college sports, where they're arguably still boys and not men.

In that context in the South, the usage of "boy" was almost certainly racially charged.

[The Hamster King]

There are two things that make Greene's run fishy:

1. $10,000 is a LOT of money for someone in his financial situation.
2. He doesn't seem to have a particularly strong reason for running.

I can see someone with a lot more money spending $10K on a lark. "Maybe I'll get lucky and win! Wouldn't that be a hoot? And even if I don't, I can tell stories the rest of my life about the time I ran for Senate!"

And I can see someone who's as broke as Greene scraping together the money for a run if they were really passionate about something. "I'm gonna spend my life savings to run for the Senate because I want to fight for homeless kitties!"

If he were a poor crackpot, or a rich doofus, this sudden leap into politics would make sense. But why would someone who doesn't seem to care very much about running spend that much money to get on the ballot? It doesn't make any sense.

I'm very curious to learn where the money for his filing fee came from.

Maybe everything about his run is legit, but there's enough weirdness here that it deserves to be thoroughly investigated. After all, there's a tiny possibility that something bizarre could happen involving DeMint and Greene could actually win ... .

[Reepicheep]

Well, he is saying this was his money from his time in the Army ('http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106159.html').

I tend to agree with Biggirl that this is a case of stupid people (or disinterested people) voting.

[Zsofia]

I haven't stopped laughing since I read this.

BTW how many senators from south carolina have been black felons?
Well, the recent mayoral election in Columbia had two. One got disqualified because the felony was too recent and one, the really crazy one, moved to a city council election.

[joebuck20]

Well, according to this story, the guy's father was pretty active in local Democratic politics back in the day, and may also have had some cash to spare for his son to make a run. Alvin, though, keeps insisting that he saved up the money himself from his days in the Army.

http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11861006100935349

[Death of Rats]

The more I see of this guy and the more I see of the average SC politico the more I am thinking he might not be that much worse. At least this guy seems honestly mentally impaired as opposed to just acting that way to pander to the bottom percentile of voters.

[DanBlather]

Well, according to this story, the guy's father was pretty active in local Democratic politics back in the day, and may also have had some cash to spare for his son to make a run. Alvin, though, keeps insisting that he saved up the money himself from his days in the Army.

http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992209084141467&act=post&pid=11861006100935349It makes sense now. The father just wanted the son out of the house.

[jtgain]

This is why I don't like open primary voting. GOP voters, who new that DeMint was a lock could have asked for Dem ballots to hijack the primary.

I'm not saying that this happened, but it could have very easily.

[jtgain]

Watching those clips just makes me feel bad for the guy. He has no business in this race.

[HookerChemical]

And 538 begins to get interested in the outcome...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/something-fishy-in-south-carolina.html

As always, 538 has an interesting analysis. There's more analysis here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

The Reader's Digest version is that:


Race didn't matter (much). There is no correlation between voting patterns and county makeup. There is a very small correlation when you look at the precinct level. This is very different from the results of the 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries where Obama did better in areas with more non-white voters.
Republicans switching parties is both unlikely due to interest in the Republican primaries and the very high voter turnout. One would expect depressed turnout in the Republican primaries and elevated Democratic turnout. The Democratic turnout was elevated, but Republican turnout wasn't.
There are some fishy results on the Republican side too, such as zero residual voters (i.e. nobody who voted didn't cast a vote in a race).
Analysis of the voting results indicates significant anomalies in the digits of the results. Essentially, statisticians tested the digits in the results and it's not a likely distribution. This is the type of analysis Nate Silver used to support claims that the Iranian elections were fraudulent in 2009 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/karroubis-unlucky-7s.html).


In short, the results are very fishy and there aren't any good theories to explain them. Throw in that the very fact that Greene won, in a landslide at that, and it's not a reach to conclude something is very rotten with the primary results. It may not be limited to the Democratic side, but that's the one that produced the result that made everybody notice.

Does anybody know what kind of machines and counting systems are they using?

[Bricker]

This is why I don't like open primary voting. GOP voters, who new that DeMint was a lock could have asked for Dem ballots to hijack the primary.

I'm not saying that this happened, but it could have very easily.

Except that:

Republicans switching parties is both unlikely due to interest in the Republican primaries and the very high voter turnout. One would expect depressed turnout in the Republican primaries and elevated Democratic turnout. The Democratic turnout was elevated, but Republican turnout wasn't.

And to answer this:


Does anybody know what kind of machines and counting systems are they using?

The iVotronic (http://www.scvotes.org/how_to_vote_video/interactive_flash_demo) touch-screen machine, made by these folks. (http://www.essvote.com/HTML/home.html)

Not Diebold, if that's where you were going.

[HookerChemical]

Not Diebold, if that's where you were going.

Thanks.
That's sort of where I'm going, but I'm not specifically concerned about Diebold, more the presence of an verifiable paper trail. Other systems (i.e. butterfly ballot) can lead to strange results.
The fact that the Republican results are fishy make me suspect a bad design rather than conspiracy. Also, you should never attribute to conspiracy what is more easily explained with human error.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, you could explain it with 100,000 voter errors...

[gonzomax]

Thanks.
That's sort of where I'm going, but I'm not specifically concerned about Diebold, more the presence of an verifiable paper trail. Other systems (i.e. butterfly ballot) can lead to strange results.
The fact that the Republican results are fishy make me suspect a bad design rather than conspiracy. Also, you should never attribute to conspiracy what is more easily explained with human error.

http://www.cfvi.us/?q=node/46 You should go there. The machines are all questionable to untrustworthy.

[gonzomax]

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890 And this th" Brad Blog" that specializes in voting fraud.

[Chronos]

For the record, I was supporting the "crossover Republican voters" hypothesis, but mostly because I can't really think of any other hypotheses that make sense. If the crossover hypothesis doesn't make sense, either (major contested Republican race for Governor, Republican turnout not depressed, etc.), then I'm stumped. Vote-machine fraud still can't be ruled out, of course, and would be consistent with everything, but that demands a considerably higher standard of proof than what we've got so far.

Let's hope that the investigative reporter is not yet an extinct breed in South Carolina. I'm glad that the 538 crew is on the case, but there's a lot they can't do without shoes on the ground in the state.

[magnusblitz]

Based off the linked 538 article saying the numbers dispell the "crossover Republican voters" theory, and that on ballets, the names are often listed alphabetically by first name... I'm thinking large-scale machine error (unintentional, not fraud).

[gonzomax]

Based off the linked 538 article saying the numbers dispell the "crossover Republican voters" theory, and that on ballets, the names are often listed alphabetically by first name... I'm thinking large-scale machine error (unintentional, not fraud).
Even if that is the case ,you should be very worried. It says a lot about machine voting and why we should not allow it. If on the other hand, if it is fraud, it is pretty stupid .

[Peremensoe]

Even if that is the case ,you should be very worried. It says a lot about machine voting and why we should not allow it. If on the other hand, if it is fraud, it is pretty stupid .

I'd say that a machine problem (in a system with no verifiable paper trail) is a much more serious matter than fraud. An untrustworthy machine system removes the legitimacy not only from the South Carolina primary contests in which it is revealed, but from all results in all states using such systems.

[septimus]

It says a lot about machine voting and why we should not allow it.

Something I once read, which if true is indefensible and should be unacceptable to any believer in democracy, is that neither independent organizations nor even the relevant governments have been permitted to do proper testing of voting machines! (The reason is that the machine's hardware and software are proprietary secrets. :dubious: )

[gonzomax]

Something I once read, which if true is indefensible and should be unacceptable to any believer in democracy, is that neither independent organizations nor even the relevant governments have been permitted to do proper testing of voting machines! (The reason is that the machine's hardware and software are proprietary secrets. :dubious: )
That's well known but the justification for it on business terms, says the governments and the peoples right to make sure our elections are fair and honest , is subservient to the right of a corporation to make money. I can not imagine allowing that kind of power to be centered in company whose interests are not in a clean elections.

[Duke]

This here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/TBJ-lFakkJI/AAAAAAAAAUE/EvrKXaxngqI/s1600/greene-rawl-1.PNG) graph, taken from the link in Jonathan Chance's post, is the smoking gun if there ever was one. It demonstrates that there is no link between racial makeup of counties and Greene's share of the vote. Typically, when you run stats analysis of SC statewide races, you're looking at a coefficient of determination of about 0.70. Here, it's 0.04.

[gonzomax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s9PkuiIw2Q&NR=1 It is even worse than you might think. One of the voting machine companies has been bought by a Venezuelan company. So they are monitoring and safe guarding our elections.

[StusBlues]

This here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTcCp8eYEyI/TBJ-lFakkJI/AAAAAAAAAUE/EvrKXaxngqI/s1600/greene-rawl-1.PNG) graph, taken from the link in Jonathan Chance's post, is the smoking gun if there ever was one. It demonstrates that there is no link between racial makeup of counties and Greene's share of the vote. Typically, when you run stats analysis of SC statewide races, you're looking at a coefficient of determination of about 0.70. Here, it's 0.04.

Good point. Something very, very strange is afoot.

So...is Greene fully cognizant of what's going on, or do you think he's an unwitting dupe? If the former, he's certainly playing dumb well enough to convince most folks of the latter.

[Chronos]

The lack of racial correlation can be easily enough explained by nobody having a clue what race Greene was. But that still leaves his victory to be explained, of course.

[Duke]

The lack of racial correlation can be easily enough explained by nobody having a clue what race Greene was. But that still leaves his victory to be explained, of course.

Indeed. Reading through the 538 articles, I was most struck by Rawls' campaign manager's comments. He seemed totally baffled by the whole situation...to the point that he stated that he periodically checked in on what Greene was up to during his "campaign" and found he was doing nothing. He didn't even attend a Democratic party rally in his own city.

It's too bad that there wasn't more exit polling done here, probably because it was a low-key primary that wasn't attracting much attention. It would have been interesting to hear exactly what Greene voters cited as motivation...or, more to the point, if there were any Greene voters.

[DanBlather]

So wait, are there no paper records of votes? Do we need to trust the voting machine programmers?

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The lack of racial correlation can be easily enough explained by nobody having a clue what race Greene was.Every person I have ever met in SC whose last name was Green or Greene was either Black (mostly) or Jewish (lesserly). IJust sayin'. Take that as you may. I didn't know before the night of the election, but I would have had a clue.

[Jonathan Chance]

Yep. No paper trail. And people will fight to prevent one.

[Irishman]

The guy went from being Air Force intelligence to Army supply... not looking good for his intelligence level. Then he was forcably "honorably" discharged from the Army. Yeah, he's a real keeper.

My gut feel is that someone is protesting the voting machines - either the machines themselves or the process of machines and no voter trails, etc. I think he is a dupe for someone who is milking this for a while before the other shoe drops.

[Khendrask]

Still, the man is retarded. And the retarded should not be allowed in public office (George W. Bush and Dan Quayle no exceptions.)

Oh? Is that in the constitution? Is there a mental acuity requirement for holding a national office? Nope.

If there were, there should also be tests given to each voter prior to being allowed to cast a ballot. Maybe the candidates names shouldn't even be on the ballot, only their platform. This result just proves even more that the electorate is stupid, and should not have a vote. Name recognition is the reason there are so many incumbents, people are too stupid to pay attention to campaigns, platforms, ideas... They just pull the lever (press the button, punch the chad) for whatever name the recognize most.

Any way, strange I didn't even hear about him, since I'm in the same town as he is. In any event, I'd actually love to see him win, and end up on some interesting committee in DC. Might shake things up a bit, and you can't lower the collective IQ of the Federal Government no matter what you do to them.

[Marley23]

There's still no real evidence for electoral shenanigans. Right now the best evidence is that most people didn't know who Rawl was, some didn't like him, and the rest just didn't give a crap and wound up voting for Greene.

[gonzomax]

No evidence ,but it is such an anomaly that it is easy to question it.

[Marley23]

It's easy to question it, I agree. And I can't totally rule out something fishy. But since Rawl and others are claiming something dirty went down, at some point they need to provide actual evidence.

[hajario]

I suspect a glitch, if anything. Maybe the people who didn't vote for either candidate had their vote go to Greene.

I find it amazing that they have electronic voting without a paper trail. How could anyone with even the tiniest shred of sanity think that this would be a good idea?

[DanBlather]

I suspect a glitch, if anything. Maybe the people who didn't vote for either candidate had their vote go to Greene.

I find it amazing that they have electronic voting without a paper trail. How could anyone with even the tiniest shred of sanity think that this would be a good idea?South Carolina, need we say more?

[DanBlather]

It's easy to question it, I agree. And I can't totally rule out something fishy. But since Rawl and others are claiming something dirty went down, at some point they need to provide actual evidence.Maybe they can look at the paper trail...

[Zsofia]

.... and we made the Daily Show. :(

[MovieMogul]

.... and we made the Daily Show. :(Indeed. Jon Stewart was on fire last night--one of his best bits in a while. :cool: :D

[Khendrask]

I suspect a glitch, if anything. Maybe the people who didn't vote for either candidate had their vote go to Greene.

I find it amazing that they have electronic voting without a paper trail. How could anyone with even the tiniest shred of sanity think that this would be a good idea?

Well, that is sort of par for the course. The weirdest thing about the election (in my mind), was that state-wide, all lottery machines were out of service "Due to the Election" from late Monday night, through Wednesday afternoon.

Maybe we don't actually use the ballots at all here, and just let the Pick-3/4/whatever bubblemachine determine the results?

[gonzomax]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/vic-rawl-systemic-failures-south-carolina-voting/ Not a glitch but lots of them. This article says Greene got more votes than were cast in 25 counties. The paper ballots, absentee, went 68 percent to Rawl. This election reeks.

[Chronos]

I can maybe explain away the absentee discrepancy: People with absentee ballots have a few days to fill them out, and access to resources like the Internet while they do. So when they got to the Senate race and went "Alvin Greene? Who's that?", they could go online and find out "Oh, he's nobody", and check off Rawl. But people in the voting booth couldn't do that, so might have voted on other criteria (random selection, "anyone but Rawl", alphabetical order, guessing race from name, whatever).

But more votes than were cast in 25 counties? That's completely absurd. Is there any source other than a single blog for that? Because if that actually happened, then I don't know what South Carolina had last week, but it sure wasn't an election.

[Frank]

But more votes than were cast in 25 counties? That's completely absurd. Is there any source other than a single blog for that? Because if that actually happened, then I don't know what South Carolina had last week, but it sure wasn't an election.
The article gonzo linked to credits (without a link) Brad's Blog. I can't find that statement there.

I did find Spartanburg County results here (http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/Spartanburg/16159/27894/en/summary.html). Precinct level results are available as a download from the "Reports" tab. These results apparently do not include absentee ballots. Nothing looks fishy to me.

Now as to the trustworthiness of the voting machines, I won't hazard a guess, but I will chime in on the side of those who are saying that a electronic voting machine without a paper trail isn't worth the paper it's not printed on.

[Bricker]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0615/vic-rawl-systemic-failures-south-carolina-voting/ Not a glitch but lots of them. This article says Greene got more votes than were cast in 25 counties.

No, it doesn't say that:

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.

It claims that in ONE county, Spartanburg, there were 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast.

But that's not true:


Greene Greene Rawl Rawl
Precinct Regis. E.Day Total E.Day Total Total
Voters votes votes votes votes
Woodruff Armory Drive Fire Station 1210 15 15 7 7 22
Arcadia Elementary 807 11 11 3 3 14
Rebirth Missionary Baptist 2933 39 39 18 18 57
Arrowood Baptist 485 9 9 3 3 12
Friendship Baptist 3282 24 24 16 16 40
Mt. Sinai Baptist 1904 33 33 22 22 55
Boiling Springs 9th Grade 2764 23 23 18 18 41
Gable Middle School 2830 46 46 30 30 76
Lake Bowen Baptist 3265 25 25 23 23 48
Cooley Springs Baptist 2259 19 19 12 12 31
Landrum High School 2239 15 15 16 16 31
Hendrix Elementary 3218 58 58 26 26 84
Canaan Baptist 1006 20 20 15 15 35
Cannons Elementary 1124 20 20 14 14 34
Cavins Hobbysville 876 7 7 6 6 13
E.P. Todd Elementary 2132 55 55 35 35 90
Cherokee Springs Fire Station 1594 11 11 8 8 19
Chesnee Senior Center 2199 20 20 17 17 37
Clifdale Elementary 836 10 10 14 14 24
Converse Fire Station 1076 14 14 8 8 22
Cowpens Fire Station 1721 16 16 9 9 25
Woodruff Fire Station 1084 8 8 7 7 15
Cross Anchor Fire Station 755 19 19 5 5 24
North Spartanburg Fire Station 2182 26 26 18 18 44
Abner Creek Baptist 971 4 4 7 7 11
Drayton Fire Station 1310 18 18 13 13 31
Grace Baptist 1243 26 26 12 12 38
Cedar Grove Baptist 1411 45 45 27 27 72
Enoree First Baptist 1239 23 23 17 17 40
Fairforest Middle School 2465 34 34 11 11 45
Travelers Rest Baptist 2661 64 64 30 30 94
Glendale Fire Station 1382 17 17 9 9 26
Gramling Methodist 1384 7 7 9 9 16
Hayne Baptist 1282 10 10 11 11 21
Holly Springs Baptist 2273 12 12 12 12 24
Chapman High School 2429 52 52 17 17 69
Landrum United Methodist 2828 23 23 13 13 36
Lyman Town Hall 2744 43 43 19 19 62
Mayo Elementary 1685 7 7 13 13 20
Motlow Creek Baptist 906 13 13 8 8 21
R.D. Anderson Vocational 1470 26 26 10 10 36
Swofford Career Center 2594 23 23 20 20 43
T.W. Edwards Recreation Center 1503 26 26 18 18 44
Pacolet Town Hall 817 20 20 8 8 28
Pauline Glenn Springs Elementary 1011 14 14 7 7 21
Pelham Fire Station 1089 13 13 18 18 31
Poplar Springs Fire Station 2158 25 25 19 19 44
Powell Saxon Una Fire Station 1151 42 42 13 13 55
Reidville Elementary 2609 37 37 17 17 54
Roebuck Elementary 2433 72 72 32 32 104
Mt. Moriah Baptist 1597 62 62 35 35 97
C.C. Woodson Recreation 1441 56 56 30 30 86
Pine Street Elementary 1342 19 19 35 35 54
Trinity Methodist 1666 14 14 31 31 45
Southside Baptist 1318 40 40 27 27 67
Spartanburg High School 2427 34 34 55 55 89
Cornerstone Baptist 1536 47 47 36 36 83
Park Hills Elementary 1171 62 62 33 33 95
Silverhill United Methodist 624 28 28 13 13 41
Woodland Heights Recreation Center 2087 39 39 28 28 67
West Side Baptist 2081 52 52 28 28 80
Beaumont Methodist 659 4 4 6 6 10
Cleveland Elementary 2042 52 52 16 16 68
Ebenezer Baptist 947 41 41 22 22 63
Startex Fire Station 1011 32 32 6 6 38
Una Fire 471 11 11 8 8 19
Victor Mill Methodist 1778 24 24 17 17 41
Mt. Calvary Presbyterian 2370 18 18 17 17 35
Wellford Fire 2473 64 64 29 29 93
West View Elementary 3446 34 34 46 46 80
Croft Baptist 1120 23 23 14 14 37
Whitlock Jr. High 1369 13 13 12 12 25
Bethany Baptist 1328 33 33 6 6 39
Woodruff Town Hall 1917 48 48 22 22 70
Woodruff American Legion 671 23 23 10 10 33
Eastside Baptist 1413 21 21 34 34 55
Mt. Zion Full Gospel Baptist 774 19 19 15 15 34
Jesse Bobo Elementary 1775 82 82 31 31 113
White Stone Methodist 953 16 16 10 10 26
Cudd Memorial 1363 25 25 14 14 39
Oakland Elementary 1977 9 9 7 7 16
Boiling Springs Intermediate 2794 51 51 28 28 79
Carlisle Fosters Grove 1637 9 9 11 11 20
Cowpens Depot Museum 1196 17 17 13 13 30
Beech Springs Intermediate 1697 22 22 18 18 40
Inman Mills Baptist 1958 23 23 11 11 34
Bethany Wesleyan 2074 23 23 16 16 39
Reidville Fire Station 3163 43 43 15 15 58
Roebuck Bethlehem 1363 31 31 21 21 52
Jesse Boyd Elementary 1515 30 30 27 27 57
Anderson Mill Elementary 3777 63 63 33 33 96
Daniel Morgan Technology Center 1261 19 19 31 31 50
Boiling Springs Elementary 2353 18 18 12 12 30
Boiling Springs Jr. High 873 9 9 3 3 12
Chapman Elementary 1938 27 27 12 12 39
Mountain View Baptist 1087 9 9 2 2 11
Boiling Springs High School 1069 11 11 8 8 19
Ben Avon Methodist 1273 19 19 16 16 35
Absentee 0 117 117 81 81 198
Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 0
Failsafe 0 16 16 4 4 20
Provisional 0 0 0 0 0 0
Failsafe Provisional 0 2 2 0 0 2
Totals: 167004 2843 2843 1795 1795 4638



From http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/16117/27900/en/select-county.html

Follow links to "By county" and download results in Excel format.

Comments?

[Frank]

Follow links to "By county" and download results in Excel format.

Comments?
Yes.

Ha, ha, beat you because I was too lazy to put the download in my post. :cool:

[Bricker]

Yes.

Ha, ha, beat you because I was too lazy to put the download in my post. :cool:

:D freakin tabs get me every time...

[MOIDALIZE]

It took me awhile to find, because The Brad Blog's layout seems to have been inspired by Angelfire, but here's Rawls' campaign manager, as reported in this Politico story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html):

In Lancaster County, Rawl won absentee ballots over Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among Election Day voters by 17 percentage points.

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.

“In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast,” Ludwig said.

Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.




:eek: (if true)

I don't see anywhere that he claimed Greene received more votes than were cast in 25 counties, so I think that blog is mistaken.

[gonzomax]

http://www2.counton2.com/cbd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/rawl_files_protest_of_tuesdays_election_results/146706/ Here is 538 story about malfunctioning machines.

[gonzomax]

It took me awhile to find, because The Brad Blog's layout seems to have been inspired by Angelfire, but here's Rawls' campaign manager, as reported in this Politico story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38433.html):




:eek: (if true)

I don't see anywhere that he claimed Greene received more votes than were cast in 25 counties, so I think that blog is mistaken.

Maybe. But Bradblog has been covering the voter machine irregularities for several years. The SC race was a horrible statistical anomaly. You can not reconcile it with math or defend with logic. It made no sense. The absentee ballots, which can be verified , were hugely in favor of Rawl. Lets face it, something is rotten in that election.

[gonzomax]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0616/aclu-south-carolina-erase-voting-records/ The ACLU is wading into the problem. The election is rife with logical inconsistencies. Something is clearly wrong in SC.

[Frank]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0616/aclu-south-carolina-erase-voting-records/ The ACLU is wading into the problem. The election is rife with logical inconsistencies. Something is clearly wrong in SC.
Very possibly so. It's certainly worth a look, worth an investigation. But you know what? You're still providing a cite that still states the already disproved "more votes for Greene than votes casted" lie.

And you know what else? Even if Rawl got 99.9% of the vote, DeMint still wins in November. It's a tempest in a teapot.

The best we can hope for is that this spurs South Carolina to adopt voting machines that are provably reliable, that this inspires the state to require a paper trail, and should that happen that's a victory for democracy, which is all I ask.

[E-Sabbath]

Something is clearly wrong in SC.

I think events of the last year have proved that statement to be true in pretty much every way possible. I say it's the fluoride in the water.

[samclem]

I think events of the last year have proved that statement to be true in pretty much every way possible. I say it's the fluoride in the water.
...or, lack thereof.

[gonzomax]

Very possibly so. It's certainly worth a look, worth an investigation. But you know what? You're still providing a cite that still states the already disproved "more votes for Greene than votes casted" lie.

And you know what else? Even if Rawl got 99.9% of the vote, DeMint still wins in November. It's a tempest in a teapot.

The best we can hope for is that this spurs South Carolina to adopt voting machines that are provably reliable, that this inspires the state to require a paper trail, and should that happen that's a victory for democracy, which is all I ask.

Demint has nothing to do with this. However I read Rawl was at 43 percent. That does not make Demint unreachable.
But the machines do not give a paper trail. They should be shitcanned if they can not be graded before, during and after the elections. We can not allow some tabulating company to keep the information to themselves. It belongs to the people.

[Duke]

And you know what else? Even if Rawl got 99.9% of the vote, DeMint still wins in November. It's a tempest in a teapot.

First off, as my fellow Jesus College Old Member Harold Wilson put it, a week is a long time in politics. DeMint won by less than 10% last go-round, hardly rock solid numbers, and there's still a long way to go in the campaign.

Secondly, what, we're going to ignore inconsistencies if the "election wasn't close"?

Thirdly, despite Bricker's cite, I'd like to see a little third-party confirmation. His cite seems to state that "the computer says that the computer added up the votes correctly."

[Strassia]

The thing is, if some one was vote fixing, this election may have been an unintended side effect. If the goal was to put the fix in for one of the more hotly contested offices who ever was doing it may have just filled in the rest of the ballot at random. If you read the 538 entries there are statistical anomalies with some of the more meaningful races.

[MOIDALIZE]

I don't even care about the actual Senate race. Rawls is doing the people of South Carolina a favor by bringing this issue to the forefront and hopefully resolving it before November. This lack of transparency is undemocratic and shouldn't be accepted anywhere.

[gonzomax]

The thing is, if some one was vote fixing, this election may have been an unintended side effect. If the goal was to put the fix in for one of the more hotly contested offices who ever was doing it may have just filled in the rest of the ballot at random. If you read the 538 entries there are statistical anomalies with some of the more meaningful races.

In America we don't trust exit polls. That is weird because they have been proven to be accurate around the world. They have a long history of being accurate in America too. Now that we have machines recording and tabulating the elections , exit polling is supposed to be flawed and untrustworthy. We use it to determine if other countries are actually holding honest elections. But when they suddenly are no good here ,we blame the methodology of exit polling.
I saw a polling expert explain that in 2004, they tripled the input because in 2000 so many people said they were off because they did not agree with the machines. He said it was statistically impossible to be off in 2004. Yet that is what is claimed. The other option is the machine counts are wrong. That would be very difficult for many people to accept.

[Bricker]

First off, as my fellow Jesus College Old Member Harold Wilson put it, a week is a long time in politics. DeMint won by less than 10% last go-round, hardly rock solid numbers, and there's still a long way to go in the campaign.

Secondly, what, we're going to ignore inconsistencies if the "election wasn't close"?

Thirdly, despite Bricker's cite, I'd like to see a little third-party confirmation. His cite seems to state that "the computer says that the computer added up the votes correctly."

How could there be "third party confirmation?"

What process would have to happen to create a third party review?

And for that matter, where is the original evidence of the vote discrepancy? Rawl's manager made theclaim, but doesn't say how he determined it or what numbers he was relying upon.

[Duke]

How could there be "third party confirmation?"

What process would have to happen to create a third party review?

A formal protest, one assumes. Which is what Rawl is trying to make. But merely repeating the numbers which are already under protest proves nothing.

And for that matter, where is the original evidence of the vote discrepancy? Rawl's manager made theclaim, but doesn't say how he determined it or what numbers he was relying upon.

It appears (and I've had just as little luck in tracking down what happened as everyone else in this thread), Rawl's campaign manager just misread or misinterpreted what was in BradBlog. BradBlog made other accusations, but not the one which Rawl's campaign manager made.

I don't think he was right at all about that, but there are plenty of things strange about this election even without the "25 precincts" accusation.

[Reepicheep]

The South Carolina Democratic Party's Executive Committee has upheld Greene's ('http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88697&catid=2') win over Rawl's challenge.

[Skammer]

The South Carolina Democratic Party's Executive Committee has upheld Greene's ('http://www.wltx.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=88697&catid=2') win over Rawl's challenge. This kind of surprises me; it seems like the statistical evidence is pretty strong that something was wrong with the vote counts. I think I expected them to set aside the election results and either schedule a new primary or, more likely, declare Rawls their candidate (which I understand they can do).

[descamisado]

I'm surprised that decided to vote against the challenge too (what's with the half-votes?).

I hope Rawl pending complaint with the Federal Election Commission gets some traction though. It would be nice to know if there were any irregularities, especially in light of statments given at the committee hearing about unusual ocurrences with the voting mahines. I would also like the State Law Enforcement Division to look into how Greene got the money for the filing fee. If it's from his Army savings and he's unemployed, why in the world would he spend his life savings to run for office, unless it's some kind of compulsive fixation for him? It seems like that, since I don't feel any real conviction behind his haltingly stated beliefs when he speaks. And if his run is based on a compulsive fixation, while he still has a right to run, the voters need to be able to take that into account, as necessary. And if, as suggested by a friend of mine, that it's some nefarious backer but "just someone with $10,000 who wanted to see what happens," there's nothing stopping them from doing that but it just seems wrong.

[Reepicheep]

This kind of surprises me; it seems like the statistical evidence is pretty strong that something was wrong with the vote counts. I think I expected them to set aside the election results and either schedule a new primary or, more likely, declare Rawls their candidate (which I understand they can do).


Not enough gain for the risks involved. It is unlikely that DeMint will be defeated, whoever is his opponent, so there is no real world political reason to fight this battle. However, if the Democrats can Greene over Rawls they have offered the Republicans a club to hit them with for years to come. “The Democrats overturned the will of the people in electing an African-American, a veteran, who used his own Army money - and only his own money - when they kicked Alvin Greene to the curb. They wanted a unpopular white man, Vic Rawls, not the duly nominated African American veteran Alvin Greene. Can you trust them not to invalidate your, the voters of SC, choice again? Vote for insert Republican Candidate's Name Here! We will listen to the voters in the great state of South Carolina. ” You get the idea.

If there was a real, easily understood smoking, gun hey might do it. But without something very tangible they could go on TV and point to saying ”This is how the election was stolen...” overturning the primary would be political suicide.

[Chronos]

How could there be "third party confirmation?"For starters, the voting machine company could release the code their machines used. The usual objection is that this would be a breach in security, but anyone who knows anything about actual security knows that the opposite is true: Arguing that keeping voting machine code secret increases security because knowing the code would help people to breach it is like arguing that the laws should be kept secret because knowing the law helps people to circumvent it.

[CyclopticXander]

On a side note, I totally just had a short conversation with Alvin Greene on the phone. This blows my mind.

[StusBlues]

On a side note, I totally just had a short conversation with Alvin Greene on the phone. This blows my mind.

What were the circumstances, and what did you learn?

[CyclopticXander]

What were the circumstances, and what did you learn?

Well his number is publicly available, so I thought what the heck given my interest in the story. I didn't seriously expect him to answer, but alas I soon heard a lot of raucous laughter in the background followed by that very distinctive voice.

It was very brief, mostly because I didn't want to be a jerk to a guy when I was calling his house, and that didn't leave a whole lot to say.

I just said I was very interested in his story and I congratulated him on his favorable result at the Dem meeting last night. He just quietly said "yes" over and over again, then he asked me where I was from and I told him, then he said he had to go and that was it.

So it was pretty much what you'd expect, he was very uncommunicative. But he was nice enough about it and I give him an A+ for accessibility.

[StusBlues]

Raucous laughter? Huh. Guess I shouldn't read too much into that, though it's hard not to given the semiotics we tend to apply to folks in the public eye.

[CyclopticXander]

Raucous laughter? Huh. Guess I shouldn't read too much into that, though it's hard not to given the semiotics we tend to apply to folks in the public eye.

Well it wasn't him, it was a lot of others in the background. it sounded like someone told a really funny joke right as I was calling and really brought down the house.

[Merijeek]

This kind of surprises me; it seems like the statistical evidence is pretty strong that something was wrong with the vote counts. I think I expected them to set aside the election results and either schedule a new primary or, more likely, declare Rawls their candidate (which I understand they can do).

Not me. Fact of the matter is, DeMint is going to beat any Democrat out there in his district. Do you really want to yank Green from the process, thereby demonstrating that the EVIL SOCIALIST COMMUNIST FASCIST DEMOCRATS care so little about our sacred elections process that they will IGNORE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE to get a white man in place of a black man?

HYPOCRITES!

-Joe

[Cyberhwk]

Not enough gain for the risks involved. It is unlikely that DeMint will be defeated, whoever is his opponent, so there is no real world political reason to fight this battle. So what?

Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid here, but if I were looking to pull off major election fraud, mucking with a small election nobody gives a damn about would probably be a very helpful trial run. Even if there is no foul play involved, what happens if it happens again in a more crucial race. They'd (rightfully) look pretty stupid to have not fixed it in the first place.

[CyclopticXander]

Let me just say I really hate this common notion that it doesn't really matter since Demint is heavily favored anyway.

First of all this offends my basic sense of civics and the idea that our politics matter. Secondly I think SC Democarts (or any party) deserves someone competent to vote for. And thirdly, it's always a possibility that a favored candidate will somehow implode, I've seen it happen. In an extreme case like that, Dems might have a chance, but now even that wouldn't increase our chances of defeating him.

Anyhow, I just see it everywhere and I hate it.

[aceplace57]

I think Greene won because no one took him seriously. He didn't face any negative campaigning. He didn't campaign much. That may have helped him. People voted for who they thought he was. A Veteran and a political outsider.

Granted, voting for someone without knowing their political views is a bad idea. Sometimes it happens. I vote every year. I try to inform myself first. But, I don't always know every candidate for all the various county and state offices. There's dozens of them.

[gonzomax]

I think Greene won because no one took him seriously. He didn't face any negative campaigning. He didn't campaign much. That may have helped him. People voted for who they thought he was. A Veteran and a political outsider.

Granted, voting for someone without knowing their political views is a bad idea. Sometimes it happens. I vote every year. I try to inform myself first. But, I don't always know every candidate for all the various county and state offices. There's dozens of them.

This was not for drain commissioner. This was for the Senate.
What is weird ,if DeMint actually had this thing won, it was a bad time to reveal the flaws in voting machines. But campaign staffs are known to be overenthusiastic some times. Like Nixon and the plumbers ,who acted when Tricky Dicky had the election well in hand.
Greene did not campaign at all. He had no staff. He can not even explain where he got 10 thou to run.
The idea that his name reminded voters of a popular black singer seems to omit Rawl's name does the same thing.

[Biggirl]

Am I the only one reminded of that Eddie Murphy routine? Ha ha! Let's vote for the black guy-- what a joke! Um. . . oh shit, he won?!!

[CyclopticXander]

I think Greene won because no one took him seriously. He didn't face any negative campaigning. He didn't campaign much. That may have helped him. People voted for who they thought he was. A Veteran and a political outsider.

Granted, voting for someone without knowing their political views is a bad idea. Sometimes it happens. I vote every year. I try to inform myself first. But, I don't always know every candidate for all the various county and state offices. There's dozens of them.

Well you're underestimating his obscurity before the election, nobody knew he was a veteran or an outsider. Trust me I'm a political nut and this election was right in my backyard, yet all I knew was that his name was on the ballot.

[DanBlather]

For starters, the voting machine company could release the code their machines used. The usual objection is that this would be a breach in security, but anyone who knows anything about actual security knows that the opposite is true: Arguing that keeping voting machine code secret increases security because knowing the code would help people to breach it is like arguing that the laws should be kept secret because knowing the law helps people to circumvent it.I tried to patent a scheme, but my company would not pursue it. Basically, each voter gets a receipt with a random number. He/she can use that number later to see if the vote recorded for that number is the same as they intended. The database of numbers and votes can be released to the public so that the press can check to see that it's the right size, the numbers are unique, and the vote totals match. It's all anonymized, so no-one except the voter knows how they voted.

It would only take a very small number of people checking their votes to detect fraud within a 99% confidence level.

[gonzomax]

I don't think we can rely on voting machines when they have no way to verify the count. The head of Diebold said his mission was to see that Bush was re-elected. He did not say he wanted to have a great working machine. What does it take for us to shit can them?

[CyclopticXander]

I tried to patent a scheme, but my company would not pursue it. Basically, each voter gets a receipt with a random number. He/she can use that number later to see if the vote recorded for that number is the same as they intended. The database of numbers and votes can be released to the public so that the press can check to see that it's the right size, the numbers are unique, and the vote totals match. It's all anonymized, so no-one except the voter knows how they voted.

It would only take a very small number of people checking their votes to detect fraud within a 99% confidence level.

Wouldn't the problem then be that that we'd be reliant on people's words/potentially faulty memories as to what votes the number should correspond with?

For instance in this case I imagine a lot of people who voted for Greene in actuality may say otherwise out of embarrassment, hindsight selective memory, a perceived need for a redo in light of new information, or honest memory lapse since obviously nobody knew a lot about the candidates to begin with.

[Chronos]

You could have the receipt say whom you voted for. Of course, people could still say "I told the machine to vote for Bob Smith, but the receipt it gave me said Jane Jones", but then, that's something that should be taken care of on the spot, by calling over a precinct worker.

Another problem I could see, though, would be that the machine could assign the same serial number to multiple people who voted the same way. That way, either of them could look in the database and see "Hmm, I'm #24601... Let's see... Yup, the database has me voting the straight Whig ticket, just like I did". You could get around that one by having a count of the total number of voters who used the machine, but then the machine could just add an extra Tory ballot for every Whig ballot it gave a recycled serial number. And you can't test for that in the database by asking "OK, who had receipt #8675309?", because most people would probably lose their receipts.

[DanBlather]

You could have the receipt say whom you voted for. Of course, people could still say "I told the machine to vote for Bob Smith, but the receipt it gave me said Jane Jones", but then, that's something that should be taken care of on the spot, by calling over a precinct worker.

Another problem I could see, though, would be that the machine could assign the same serial number to multiple people who voted the same way. That way, either of them could look in the database and see "Hmm, I'm #24601... Let's see... Yup, the database has me voting the straight Whig ticket, just like I did". You could get around that one by having a count of the total number of voters who used the machine, but then the machine could just add an extra Tory ballot for every Whig ballot it gave a recycled serial number. And you can't test for that in the database by asking "OK, who had receipt #8675309?", because most people would probably lose their receipts.In order to swing an election you would have to change a large number of ballots and assign the same ID. If you do this to one out of a hundred votes, and there are thousands of voters, you need a very small number of people to check the database and see that that entry had already been accessed. Besides which, you would make the database public so anyone could look for duplicate unique IDs.

[Walton Firm]

I tried to patent a scheme, but my company would not pursue it. Basically, each voter gets a receipt with a random number. He/she can use that number later to see if the vote recorded for that number is the same as they intended. The database of numbers and votes can be released to the public so that the press can check to see that it's the right size, the numbers are unique, and the vote totals match. It's all anonymized, so no-one except the voter knows how they voted.

It would only take a very small number of people checking their votes to detect fraud within a 99% confidence level.
If you have the ability to verify that your vote was counted correctly, then you also have the ability to prove to someone else who you voted for. Which means that you can be bribed or pressured to vote for someone other than your preferred candidate.

[Zsofia]

Well you're underestimating his obscurity before the election, nobody knew he was a veteran or an outsider. Trust me I'm a political nut and this election was right in my backyard, yet all I knew was that his name was on the ballot.
Yeah, those "y'all's all racist!" morons on thestate.com's comments are all "And why has The State not reported anything about Alvin Greene's campaign?!" Look, you fucking moron, there WAS NO CAMPAIGN.

[Chronos]

In order to swing an election you would have to change a large number of ballots and assign the same ID. If you do this to one out of a hundred votes, and there are thousands of voters, you need a very small number of people to check the database and see that that entry had already been accessed. Besides which, you would make the database public so anyone could look for duplicate unique IDs. Except there would be no duplicate IDs. To illustrate, let's say that there are three voters, Alice, Bob, and Carol, and only one election, with Yolanda and Zachary running. Alice and Bob vote for Yolanda, and Carol votes for Zachary. The voting machine, however, was made by a crooked friend of Zachary's. When Alice votes, it gives her a receipt that says "You voted for Yolanda. Your serial number is 17". When Bob votes, it gives him a receipt that says "You voted for Yolanda. Your serial number is 17". And when Carol votes, it gives her a receipt that says "You voted for Zachary. Your serial number is 23". Then, it publishes a database that says that serial number 17 voted Yolanda, serial number 23 voted Zachary, and serial number 42 voted Zachary, and declares Zachary the winner. Alice, Bob, and Carol will all three have receipts that match the database, and the right number of votes have been cast.

[legalsnugs]

Well you're underestimating his obscurity before the election, nobody knew he was a veteran or an outsider. Trust me I'm a political nut and this election was right in my backyard, yet all I knew was that his name was on the ballot.

Nobody knew he was a veteran or an outsider or black. Or that he was running until the day of the election. Apparently lots of incredibly ignorant people disregarded the old "better the devil you know" saying. Too bad. Now we have a choice for senator between a "Waterloo" megalomaniac and a retard (I'm going to hell for that, I know). I am disgusted.

Isn't there a green party candidate, Tom Clements, that was equally unreported on by the local paper? Anybody have any idea what his policies are? What a cluster.

[DanBlather]

Except there would be no duplicate IDs. To illustrate, let's say that there are three voters, Alice, Bob, and Carol, and only one election, with Yolanda and Zachary running. Alice and Bob vote for Yolanda, and Carol votes for Zachary. The voting machine, however, was made by a crooked friend of Zachary's. When Alice votes, it gives her a receipt that says "You voted for Yolanda. Your serial number is 17". When Bob votes, it gives him a receipt that says "You voted for Yolanda. Your serial number is 17". And when Carol votes, it gives her a receipt that says "You voted for Zachary. Your serial number is 23". Then, it publishes a database that says that serial number 17 voted Yolanda, serial number 23 voted Zachary, and serial number 42 voted Zachary, and declares Zachary the winner. Alice, Bob, and Carol will all three have receipts that match the database, and the right number of votes have been cast.If that were an isolated case it would be virtually undetectable, but if it happened enough to actually influence the election then it would take a very small numbers of voters checking their vote for it to quickly become clear that more than oner person was checking that number.

If you have the ability to verify that your vote was counted correctly, then you also have the ability to prove to someone else who you voted for. Which means that you can be bribed or pressured to vote for someone other than your preferred candidate.This is the big weakness of the scheme.

[Chronos]

If that were an isolated case it would be virtually undetectable, but if it happened enough to actually influence the election then it would take a very small numbers of voters checking their vote for it to quickly become clear that more than oner person was checking that number.
How would it become clear? And would it be a clearer sign of shenanigans than, say, someone who didn't campaign winning 60% of the vote?

[gonzomax]

How would it become clear? And would it be a clearer sign of shenanigans than, say, someone who didn't campaign winning 60% of the vote?

Especially when the countable ballots, the absentees, were according to predictions.

[septimus]

If you have the ability to verify that your vote was counted correctly, then you also have the ability to prove to someone else who you voted for. Which means that you can be bribed or pressured to vote for someone other than your preferred candidate.

Two comments.
(1) The ability to verify does not, IIRC, guarantee you can prove (and thus be pressured). There are papers that study this topic, some using cryptography, some much simpler (but none very simple). IIRC, in one such scheme you cast three ballots, which sum (e.g. by exclusive-or) to your desired ballot; you get a receipt only for one of the three. Further details left as exercise. :cool: As a practical matter, the proposed solutions may all seem too complicated to deploy.
(2) Absentee ballots, at least as used in U.S.A., already lead to the coercion problem. (Is there evidence showing this to be a problem in U.S.A.?)

[DanBlather]

How would it become clear? And would it be a clearer sign of shenanigans than, say, someone who didn't campaign winning 60% of the vote?One idea is to keep track of when an entry in the database was accessed. If I check my number and see that someone else has accessed it then I know there is something up. Even if only a relatively small number of people checked, the law of large numbers makes it likely that you'll detect fraud. Right now we know something is fishy in SC, but no-one can come out and say that their vote was recorded incorrectly.

[Merijeek]

One idea is to keep track of when an entry in the database was accessed. If I check my number and see that someone else has accessed it then I know there is something up. Even if only a relatively small number of people checked, the law of large numbers makes it likely that you'll detect fraud. Right now we know something is fishy in SC, but no-one can come out and say that their vote was recorded incorrectly.

Voter: "Someone call the FEC! My serial was accessed two days ago! I didn't do that!"
IT Nerd: "Says here it was done from the same IP address you checked it from ten minutes ago."
Voter: "Oops. I guess I did check it. I forgot. Sorry."

Now play this conversation out a couple thousand times and you've got a lot of WOLF! cries.

-Joe

[Zsofia]

Oh, this is cute. They just had to overturn an election in Lee County (the South Carolina county where the sheriff just got busted for his involvement in the drug business) because they got 107% turnout.

[Chronos]

See, this is why we're better than Saddam Hussein! He only ever got 100% to vote for him!

[Merijeek]

Oh, this is cute. They just had to overturn an election in Lee County (the South Carolina county where the sheriff just got busted for his involvement in the drug business) because they got 107% turnout.

See what happens when you have a Democrat president?

-Joe

[Irishman]

The simplest record method is that you get a printed receipt that you can verify matches your intended vote, but without your name on it. Then you drop that receipt into a box before leaving the polling place. This would be just like the manual voting cards we used prior to the machines.

If there is any funky number business, then the receipts can be counted by hand. That's a manual recount.

If you really want to have fun, print the receipts as scantron forms.

Then there is a recountable record that does not have the voter's ID associated, but the voter checks before submitting, that is independent of the electronic record in the machines and any code finagling and whatnot.

[DanBlather]

The simplest record method is that you get a printed receipt that you can verify matches your intended vote, but without your name on it. Then you drop that receipt into a box before leaving the polling place. This would be just like the manual voting cards we used prior to the machines.

If there is any funky number business, then the receipts can be counted by hand. That's a manual recount.

If you really want to have fun, print the receipts as scantron forms.

Then there is a recountable record that does not have the voter's ID associated, but the voter checks before submitting, that is independent of the electronic record in the machines and any code finagling and whatnot.I like this idea.

[conurepete]

That sounds really good

[suranyi]

I don't think we can rely on voting machines when they have no way to verify the count. The head of Diebold said his mission was to see that Bush was re-elected. He did not say he wanted to have a great working machine. What does it take for us to shit can them?

Diebold no longer makes voting machines. That part of its business was spun off into a separate company called Premier Election Solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions)in 2007, and that in turn was bought another company called Election Systems & Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Systems_%26_Software)in 2009. So you don't have to be scared of the Diebold boogeyman anymore.

The bigger part of Diebold's business, by far, is ATM machines.

[gonzomax]

Diebold no longer makes voting machines. That part of its business was spun off into a separate company called Premier Election Solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions)in 2007, and that in turn was bought another company called Election Systems & Software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Systems_%26_Software)in 2009. So you don't have to be scared of the Diebold boogeyman anymore.

The bigger part of Diebold's business, by far, is ATM machines.

http://www.votersunite.org/info/ES&Sinthenews.pdf Yep ES & S are just so different. Half owner was a Diebold VP. Nope, no relationship at all. With the same kind of results.

[gonzomax]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/dan-rather-inve/ More on ES&S . they don't test the machines.

[suranyi]

http://www.votersunite.org/info/ES&Sinthenews.pdf Yep ES & S are just so different. Half owner was a Diebold VP. Nope, no relationship at all. With the same kind of results.

Fine, just don't talk about Diebold voting machines anymore. Talk about ES & S.

[gonzomax]

Fine, just don't talk about Diebold voting machines anymore. Talk about ES & S.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7906 Totally inadequate response. The voter machine companies are p[laying musical chairs and who knows who actually owns what? But our machines are now mostly in hands of Canadian and Venezuelan companies. Can that be justified? We are talking about election credibility. The machines should not be in private hands.

[CaveMike]

Two comments.
(1) The ability to verify does not, IIRC, guarantee you can prove (and thus be pressured). There are papers that study this topic, some using cryptography, some much simpler (but none very simple). IIRC, in one such scheme you cast three ballots, which sum (e.g. by exclusive-or) to your desired ballot; you get a receipt only for one of the three. Further details left as exercise. :cool: As a practical matter, the proposed solutions may all seem too complicated to deploy.I don't understand what you are describing here. If I get one of my three receipts (one of which is wrong), what use is that? The point is that if I can leave the polling place and verify that my vote was tallied correctly -- by whatever method -- then I could be forced to demonstrate that for someone else.

Also consider that ballots include many elections. It is not just the presidential or senatorial election that can be coerced. An anonymizing scheme needs to take all of the elections into account.(2) Absentee ballots, at least as used in U.S.A., already lead to the coercion problem. (Is there evidence showing this to be a problem in U.S.A.?)Absentee ballots are a small fraction of total ballots. Just because a small percentage of ballots are open to coercion doesn't mean that we should open up all ballots.

Furthermore, voting absentee requires advanced planning and may have restrictions (there seem to be fewer restrictions in recent years).

There is a big difference between your boss saying, "You voted today? OK, show me your receipt and prove you didn't vote for the black guy" vs. "I need you all to register for an absentee ballot in the next 6 weeks, fill it out, and then bring it into work so that I can mail it for you."

Or some guy hanging outside the polling place, "Hey, you want to make five bucks? Bring out your receipt and show me you voted for Greene." vs. a guy going door-to-door months before an election: "Want to make five bucks? Here is what I need you to do..."

[Skammer]

That's why I like the suggestion of a receipt that you verify for accuracy and then deposit in a lockbox before leaving the polling facility. That way you can verify that your vote was recorded correctly, and the receipts can be counted by hand to verify the machine tally.

[CaveMike]

That's why I like the suggestion of a receipt that you verify for accuracy and then deposit in a lockbox before leaving the polling facility. That way you can verify that your vote was recorded correctly, and the receipts can be counted by hand to verify the machine tally.Agreed. In this method, the computer voting system simplifies the process of filling out the form. Everything on the back-end is the same.

[Duke]

OK, this has to be heard to be believed.

Wonkette interviews Alvin Greene (http://wonkette.com/416353/wonkette-exclusive-the-alvin-greene-interview)

[StusBlues]

Seriously, seriously, how different is this from the early Palin interviews?

[Duke]

Seriously, seriously, how different is this from the early Palin interviews?

It's a difference of degree, but a weird one. At least in the Palin interviews, she'd respond to questions. This guy doesn't even seem to know what an interview is...

[StusBlues]

It's a difference of degree, but a weird one. At least in the Palin interviews, she'd respond to questions. This guy doesn't even seem to know what an interview is...

The truth is that he's responding as most politicians are advised to do--by making declarative statements that put him in a good light. I was at a training a few months ago, and this is de rigueur when dealing with the media: never answer the question with anything that could possibly be bad, even if your answer is utterly non-responsive. Greene's not very good at it because he only has a very few stock answers. If you look at any political interview, except for some of the more candid ones, you're going to run into some surreal moments when they run out of stock answers. Palin got there relatively quick, and she wasn't too good at keeping track of them early on, so it got weird--and because of who she is, the weird got looped. Greene's worse (though not nearly as much worse as one would hope), so it gets there even quicker.

[Maus Magill]

Seriously, seriously, how different is this from the early Palin interviews?

No one's actually taking Greene seriously?

[Gyrate]

OK, this has to be heard to be believed.

Wonkette interviews Alvin Greene (http://wonkette.com/416353/wonkette-exclusive-the-alvin-greene-interview)He is not thinking about the presidency yet (nor should he, as it will come to him through the Dao naturally). He thinks Obama is doing “okay.”Am I the only one waiting for him to say "I like to watch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/)"?

[Merijeek]

It's a difference of degree, but a weird one. At least in the Palin interviews, she'd respond to questions. This guy doesn't even seem to know what an interview is...

But, see, that's what makes him a Real American. He isn't some stuffed shirt fat cat educated ivory tower socialist liberal! He's a down to Earth veteran! He probably even shoots his own dinner! VOTE GREEN(E)! VOTE GREEN(E)!

No one's actually taking Greene seriously?

I saw starbursts! And now I gotta change my shorts.

-Joe

[legalsnugs]

No one's actually taking Greene seriously?

Well, the South Carolina Democratic Party is. They have to - he's their duly elected candidate for US Senate. More South Carolinians voted for him to be their candidate than any other nominee, so unless and until someone shows he is not entitled to be, he's it.

Of course, "taking Greene seriously" could have a wide spectrum of meanings.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Well, the South Carolina Democratic Party is. They have to - he's their duly elected candidate for US Senate. More South Carolinians voted for him to be their candidate than any other nominee, so unless and until someone shows he is not entitled to be, he's it.

Of course, "taking Greene seriously" could have a wide spectrum of meanings.

I don't think the South Carolina Democratic Party is taking Greene seriously, in spite of your assertion otherwise. Being the nominee doesn't mean anyone is taking him seriously. I haven't heard of anybody who is.

[legalsnugs]

I don't think the South Carolina Democratic Party is taking Greene seriously, in spite of your assertion otherwise. Being the nominee doesn't mean anyone is taking him seriously. I haven't heard of anybody who is.

Like I said, "taking him seriously" could have a wide variety of meanings. They are absolutely taking him seriously in that although he IS the nominee, they've distanced themselves far, far from him and have offered him absolutely no support. That sure makes them look good, doesn't it? They took his filing fee and put his name on the ballot and now they are seriously disturbed that he won the nomination and that SC Democrats in general look like morons for voting for a complete unknown. Mr. Greene has become a major thorn in their sides, for a really good reason. They did a crappy job on the senatorial primary. I take Alvin Greene's nomination very seriously and I am seriously ashamed of the South Carolina Democratic Party for their part in this whole snafu. The only person in SC not hurt by SCDP's unmitigated negligence is incumbent Jim DeMint (R-SC). And that's serious. I certainly hope the SCDP is taking all of this, and Alvin Greene, their elected candidate, seriously.

If you define seriously as in "think he can win the election," then no, probably not. But then, no one took his primary candidacy seriously either, did they?

[StusBlues]

Am I the only one waiting for him to say "I like to watch (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078841/)"?

Good one!

[gonzomax]

Like I said, "taking him seriously" could have a wide variety of meanings. They are absolutely taking him seriously in that although he IS the nominee, they've distanced themselves far, far from him and have offered him absolutely no support. That sure makes them look good, doesn't it? They took his filing fee and put his name on the ballot and now they are seriously disturbed that he won the nomination and that SC Democrats in general look like morons for voting for a complete unknown. Mr. Greene has become a major thorn in their sides, for a really good reason. They did a crappy job on the senatorial primary. I take Alvin Greene's nomination very seriously and I am seriously ashamed of the South Carolina Democratic Party for their part in this whole snafu. The only person in SC not hurt by SCDP's unmitigated negligence is incumbent Jim DeMint (R-SC). And that's serious. I certainly hope the SCDP is taking all of this, and Alvin Greene, their elected candidate, seriously.

If you define seriously as in "think he can win the election," then no, probably not. But then, no one took his primary candidacy seriously either, did they?

He was a last minute candidate who plopped down 10,400 bucks he should not have had. He was a complete unknown, non politician. Then he won the election. How could the Dems have forseen such a development or had plans for it ?

[legalsnugs]

He was a last minute candidate who plopped down 10,400 bucks he should not have had. He was a complete unknown, non politician. Then he won the election. How could the Dems have forseen such a development or had plans for it ?

He filed in March, the primary was in June. You'd think in 3 months someone could have run a background check on the guy. His opponent could have said something, anything, about him, or at least found out what his campaign planks were. But the point is, a majority of the SC democrats voted for him, so he's the Democratic candidate for the US Senate. And maybe, just to make a nice change, the SCDP should take him seriously. This is no joke. This is 50% of our senate seats.

[Irishman]

It's possible the SCDP feels that even a Republican would be better than this clown.

He was a total nobody who did zero campaigning, had zero visibility and zero participation in the party - no prior involvement, no activity during the race. And he's a complete moron.

If he legitimately won, he won by some weird conjunction of the actual candidate being unliked and the voters not caring enough otherwise to even try. That means he isn't the South Carolina Democrats' pick, he's the "default" we don't want that guy.

So what is the go forward strategy? Try to get behind, in front of, and all around Greene and (a) polish his presentation, and (b) manipulate him to party ends? Distance themselves from him and hope he doesn't win? Watch him win the Senate race, and then cringe at everything he does in the Senate for the next 2 years? Get him expelled based upon the criminal charges/conviction, then try to get a special primary or something and hope it's early enough to recompete for the November election?

They're screwed either way. If they don't support him, then the Repubs use that against them. "Greene's the duly elected Dem candidate and they didn't support him because he wasn't the party candidate." But if they go get behind him, the Repubs just slam them with that. "Greene is the best the Democrats could find. They picked this idiot. Who do you want, a guy with an IQ 80, or our man?"

[StusBlues]

Yeah, it's not in the best interests of the SCDP to back this guy. A few years ago, Nebraska's most rural congressional district nominated a guy I went to college with, Adrian Smith. Smith isn't at the Alvin Greene level, but I was in student government with him for a whole school year and he only opened his mouth once--to oppose funding the campus gay programs group. He ended up serving a couple of terms in the Unicameral, impressing no one; I believe his most impressive efforts were to repeal our motorcycle helmet laws. When he ran for Congress, several of the big Republicans out west started having events and raising money for the Democrat. Flagrantly Republican newspapers endorsed the Democrat. Republican party leaders wrote op eds asking voters to come out for the Democrat.

Smith still won.

[Chronos]

He filed in March, the primary was in June. You'd think in 3 months someone could have run a background check on the guy. His opponent could have said something, anything, about him, or at least found out what his campaign planks were.And how would he have done that? Check his campaign website? Ask him? The baffling thing here is that he doesn't seem to actually have planks.

[legalsnugs]

And how would he have done that? Check his campaign website? Ask him? The baffling thing here is that he doesn't seem to actually have planks.

Why not ask him? Talk to him? But nobody did that. No one. No one took him seriously. Apparently that was a mistake. So, now what? Democrats who can read won't vote for Greene - he obviously cannot do the job (I'm sure the porn charge will go away - it's idiotic), but the state will surely suffer under Demint's continued king-building, hell-no, waterloo idiocy. He's as big an embarrassment as Greene's nomination! So Democrats will vote for the Green party guy or someone else, splitting their vote so that Demint will have an easy win, which was not guaranteed by any means if Rawl had been the candidate.

[Captain Midnight]

If I was in South Carolina, I would vote for him.

And why not? The Congress are either stupid or thieves to let this nation go to where it has gotten to the last 20 years. I care not to think that out officials are crooks, so they must be stupid. So as a citizen, it is my duty to find the dumbest person possible and vote for that person.

I mean, the state already has Lindsey Graham, the closeted son of Gomer Pyle. A retarded governor who disappears from the state and goes all the way to Argentina to his mistress, with his (good looking) wife, and the state of South Carolina wondering where in the hell their governor is. Then there was Strom Thurmond, a man elected by the people of South Carolina for the past 1000 years, who was a racist who had a secret half black daughter. The people voted for this man until he was in his upper NINETIES. for real, and completed his last term at 100. Why, people of South Carolina, did you re-elect a man in a depends undergarment?

Dunno about Jim DeMint, except for his strange name, Jim DeMint. Minty fresh!

As an aside, South Carolina is the only southern state I have never been in. Virginia counts too, except for the airport, but I have never been to South Carolina. Probably never go.

[legalsnugs]

If I was in South Carolina, I would vote for him.

And why not? The Congress are either stupid or thieves to let this nation go to where it has gotten to the last 20 years. I care not to think that out officials are crooks, so they must be stupid. So as a citizen, it is my duty to find the dumbest person possible and vote for that person.

I mean, the state already has Lindsey Graham, the closeted son of Gomer Pyle. A retarded governor who disappears from the state and goes all the way to Argentina to his mistress, with his (good looking) wife, and the state of South Carolina wondering where in the hell their governor is. Then there was Strom Thurmond, a man elected by the people of South Carolina for the past 1000 years, who was a racist who had a secret half black daughter. The people voted for this man until he was in his upper NINETIES. for real, and completed his last term at 100. Why, people of South Carolina, did you re-elect a man in a depends undergarment?

Dunno about Jim DeMint, except for his strange name, Jim DeMint. Minty fresh!

As an aside, South Carolina is the only southern state I have never been in. Virginia counts too, except for the airport, but I have never been to South Carolina. Probably never go.

South Carolina deserves better than Demint AND Greene, but who? Ah, there's the rub.

[Chronos]

Why not ask him? Talk to him? But nobody did that.People are asking him now, though, and he can't really seem to answer them.

[samclem]

I mean, the state already has Lindsey Graham, the closeted son of Gomer Pyle.

As an aside, South Carolina is the only southern state I have never been in.
Lindsey Graham is probably one of the more honorable, smartest Republican Senators. If you think he's a Gomer Pyle caricature, then you have no idea of what he is or what he stands for. And I say that as a rather liberal person.

If you've never been there, why do you think you have insight into their politics?

[legalsnugs]

People are asking him now, though, and he can't really seem to answer them.

Yeah, I think that might have been helpful to know BEFORE the primary, don't you?


Lindsey Graham is probably one of the more honorable, smartest Republican Senators. If you think he's a Gomer Pyle caricature, then you have no idea of what he is or what he stands for. And I say that as a rather liberal person....

I agree. He seems to try to work across the aisle, but keeps getting slapped down by teapartiers and hardline rightwingers and nothing gets done. I don't think that's how government is supposed to work, but that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)

[SlackerInc]

If you have the ability to verify that your vote was counted correctly, then you also have the ability to prove to someone else who you voted for. Which means that you can be bribed or pressured to vote for someone other than your preferred candidate.

This is why I don't share the enthusiasm many other progressives have for Oregon's statewide vote-by-mail system, which essentially has everyone vote absentee. I mean, this brings us right back to where we were before the secret ballot. Employers (or, yes, unions) can have "parties" for their employees/members to get together and fill out ballots. Authoritarian patriarchs can sit at the kitchen table and get all the adults in the household (which could include a lot of twentysomethings these days--"All in the Family" was ahead of its time in that portrayal) to fill out the ballots together.

BTW, I'm impressed that after going nearly seven years without visiting this board, I was still able to sign in and the software knew right when I had last visited and had my old posts available with a click! Why so long away, you ask? I have found that Google searches generally answer most SD-type questions these days; but just now I had one about thermometers (why they work upside down) that resisted being Google-able for whatever reason. Its answer turned out to be found in the archives here; but as long as I was here, I thought I'd post something before scooting off for another seven years or so. ;)

[joebuck20]

Here's an AP story that sheds a little more light on his personal life. Oddly enough it only deepens the mystery:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/alvin-greene-details-emer_n_635953.html


Alvin Greene earned the nickname "turtle" in high school – a quiet, withdrawn boy who was smart when he applied himself but rarely took a chance and tried to put himself in comfortable situations.

Nearly four weeks ago, the 32-year-old unemployed military veteran turned South Carolina's political scene upside down when he won the Democratic nomination for a U.S. Senate seat. And unlike that high school student, he's taking a big chance: running against powerhouse Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.

He is remembered as painfully shy by those who knew him in high school, where Greene was the only black person on the tennis team. His mother died of cancer when he was a boy; a brother died of cystic fibrosis. The few people who know him say the man with a political science degree from the University of South Carolina is smarter than his national image suggests.

[Stoneburg]

For some reason the phrase "the only black person on the tennis team" sounds like an expression. Or, god forbid.... a band name.

[Chronos]

Did he maybe suffer some sort of brain damage while in the service?

[Honesty]

They're screwed either way. If they don't support him, then the Repubs use that against them. "Greene's the duly elected Dem candidate and they didn't support him because he wasn't the party candidate." But if they go get behind him, the Repubs just slam them with that. "Greene is the best the Democrats could find. They picked this idiot. Who do you want, a guy with an IQ 80, or our man?"


Well, first, I don't think Mr. Greene has an IQ of 80 since he holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science and, unlike most of you, has had to overcome adversity. Mr. Greene may not be articulate that but doesn't make him borderline retarded. I also hope that Mr. Greene turns a second upset and wins the SC senate seat. It would amuse me.

[Jophiel]

I've been largely out of this thread lately because I just assume DeMint will win in a landslide (which he probably would have done otherwise) and Greene, while amusing, is largely meaningless. But this made me laugh from Political Wire:
In an interview with The Guardian, South Carolina U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene (D) discussed his "big idea" to create jobs in his state.

Said Greene: "Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays. Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an army uniform, air force uniform, and me in my suit. They can make toys of me and my vehicle, especially for the holidays and Christmas for the kids. That's something that would create jobs. So you see I think out of the box like that. It's not something a typical person would bring up. That's something that could happen, that makes sense. It's not a joke."

[Irishman]

legalsnugs said:
Why not ask him? Talk to him? But nobody did that. No one. No one took him seriously.

He apparently didn't take himself seriously, he did not participate in any Democratic party activities - fundraisers, debates, dialogues, whatever. Zero. He was a mystery to them because he was a complete non-entity.

I also wonder just how many no-names turn up in an average Senate primary. How frequently do people file and then not be visible at all?

Nobody has yet to get a straight answer out of him about how he campaigned, what he did to get the word out.

Honesty said:
Well, first, I don't think Mr. Greene has an IQ of 80 since he holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science and, unlike most of you, has had to overcome adversity.

Since when has truth mattered in a campaign race? All that matters is public perception - and the Repubs have a lot of material to make their case. I mean, it's not like there's a publically searchable database with IQ scores.

Mr. Greene may not be articulate that but doesn't make him borderline retarded.

No, but the converse could be true.

[hajario]

My hypothesis is that he's the next Andy Kaufman. I can't wait to see what he does next.

[gonzomax]

The reason nobody knows anything about him, is he did not run. He plopped down the money, hibernated or 3 months and won. The press had no opportunity to grill him. It is a strange story.

[Frank]

Greene will face no charges over filing fee. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNyH1XTKf1Adc_-fGBAefXf8YYEQD9GRRFEO0)

An unemployed military veteran will face no state charges over the $10,440 filing fee for his successful bid to win South Carolina's Democratic nomination to run for U.S. Senate, the state's top police official said Friday.

...

But when state agents reviewed Greene's bank accounts, they found an October deposit of nearly $6,000, which was Greene's military exit pay, and about $3,000 deposited early this year from state and federal tax refunds, Lloyd said.

To my mind, this makes the story all that more bewildering. Had I plunked down pretty much every penny I had in the world to run for the Senate, I expect I would have actually . . . you know . . . run. 'Course, he's proven that he can win with the campaign strategy of sitting in his living room watching TV, so who am I to say?

[Biggirl]

So. . . is the Democratic party getting behind him? Are they sending him money, giving him training, paying for some ads? He'll need the help if he's gonna cream DeMint*.







*Just read that some where else and I had to steal it because I'm an awful person.

[Zsofia]

Today the paper says he wants Denzel Washington to play him in the movie. Nothing's going to beat his action figure economic stimulus plan, though.

[gonzomax]

So. . . is the Democratic party getting behind him? Are they sending him money, giving him training, paying for some ads? He'll need the help if he's gonna cream DeMint*.







*Just read that some where else and I had to steal it because I'm an awful person.

Not all all. he does not need help. He has proven the way to win is not run. It would be great if he won and we discovered spending huge amounts of money on a campaign is a waste.

[Bricker]

Greene will face no charges over filing fee. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNyH1XTKf1Adc_-fGBAefXf8YYEQD9GRRFEO0)
To my mind, this makes the story all that more bewildering. Had I plunked down pretty much every penny I had in the world to run for the Senate, I expect I would have actually . . . you know . . . run. 'Course, he's proven that he can win with the campaign strategy of sitting in his living room watching TV, so who am I to say?
Greene, who did no fundraising, won an unexpected victory over former state lawmaker Vic Rawl in the June 8 Democratic primary to face GOP U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint.

Greene had reported just over $1,000 in monthly income on court paperwork and was appointed a public defender to represent him on a pending obscenity charge. His meager finances raised questions about how he paid the required $10,440 fee to run as a U.S. Senate candidate.

But when state agents reviewed Greene's bank accounts, they found an October deposit of nearly $6,000, which was Greene's military exit pay, and about $3,000 deposited early this year from state and federal tax refunds, Lloyd said.

The records matched Greene's story that the 32-year-old candidate, who has been collecting unemployment benefits since he left the military in August, was able to afford the fee because he saved his money and lived frugally.

OK, so the following folks who expressed suspicion over the source of Greene's money -- are you now satisfied on that score?


It will be interesting to find out how the unemployeed guy got the $10000 to get on the ballot in the first place. i wonder if he will turn out to have had "help" with this win.

People are questioning how he even came up with the $10,400 filing fee, nevertheless WON. For sure something's seriously strange here.


There are two things that make Greene's run fishy:

1. $10,000 is a LOT of money for someone in his financial situation.
2. He doesn't seem to have a particularly strong reason for running.

.
.
.
I'm very curious to learn where the money for his filing fee came from.


I would also like the State Law Enforcement Division to look into how Greene got the money for the filing fee. If it's from his Army savings and he's unemployed, why in the world would he spend his life savings to run for office, unless it's some kind of compulsive fixation for him?

[Chronos]

That settles the question of where he got the money, but not the question of why. It doesn't make sense to spend that much money on anything without following up on it.

[gonzomax]

He may have broken the code. Nowadays ,not running and spending money is the way to win. Nobody has tried it before. If he wins easily, he will shake up the whole system. It could be a fun election.

[The Hamster King]

OK, so the following folks who expressed suspicion over the source of Greene's money -- are you now satisfied on that score?Yeah, seems legit. It's still bizarre though. (In a "weird things humans do" way, not in a "something's fishy" way.)

[Maus Magill]

OK, so the following folks who expressed suspicion over the source of Greene's money -- are you now satisfied on that score?

I had my suspicions. I'll admit I had thought Greene was the pawn of some dirty trickster. It looks like he's legit after all. That's a relief.

However, there's the question of how he won in the first place. I still don't buy that most people just picked the first name on the ballot. I would assume that low turn out primary voters go into the booth with a pretty good idea of whom they will vote for - especially for a high profile office like the senate.

[gonzomax]

The more I see of this guy and the more I see of the average SC politico the more I am thinking he might not be that much worse. At least this guy seems honestly mentally impaired as opposed to just acting that way to pander to the bottom percentile of voters.

So you think it was republican crossover votes.

[An Arky]

...and it just keeps getting stranger...

Alvin Greene Indicted on Porn Charge (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/greene.indicted/index.html?hpt=T1)



Greene was charged by police last November with showing pornographic material to a female University of South Carolina student on a computer in the school's library.
Greene, according to a report from university police, "told her to look at his computer screen."

The alleged victim claimed she told Greene that the image displayed on the screen "was offensive and not funny."
She also claimed Greene asked if he could come to her room.

[ElvisL1ves]

Is this the basis the SC Dem Party needed to cut this poor whackjob loose in favor of the real nominee, the guy who could beat DeMint? And to investigate the vote counting system, while they're at it?

[legalsnugs]

Is this the basis the SC Dem Party needed to cut this poor whackjob loose in favor of the real nominee, the guy who could beat DeMint? And to investigate the vote counting system, while they're at it?

I understand the Democratic Party has again asked him to withdraw, but he's refused, again. Besides, we'd need a real knight in shining armor to beat Demint and I don't think we have one. Rawl lost to Greene, remember. Plus we'd need Demint's financial investigations to show his "discounted" C Street rent payments to the Family and I don't think that'll happen before November. And even if it showed Demint's a completely dishonest fraudulent megalomaniac, South Carolinians would still vote for him. State motto: But We've Always Done It This Way. Demint's raised over $3 million to beat two opponents who between them reportedly have raised about $1,000.

We can always hope for our knight and the investigation, but our brilliant Democrats put Greene in the nominee's seat in the first place. I weep for South Carolina.

[ElvisL1ves]

Rawl lost to Greene, remember.There's some reason for skepticism about that, given SC's use of the most hackable voting technology one could conceive - and an already-known issue with ES&S machines recording votes for the wrong candidate. Unfortunately (or by intent), that system is also unverifiable.

And even if it showed Demint's a completely dishonest fraudulent megalomaniac, South Carolinians would still vote for him.But that's probably true anyway.

[gonzomax]

He was a last minute candidate who plopped down 10,400 bucks he should not have had. He was a complete unknown, non politician. Then he won the election. How could the Dems have forseen such a development or had plans for it ?

He filed in March, the primary was in June. You'd think in 3 months someone could have run a background check on the guy. His opponent could have said something, anything, about him, or at least found out what his campaign planks were. But the point is, a majority of the SC democrats voted for him, so he's the Democratic candidate for the US Senate. And maybe, just to make a nice change, the SCDP should take him seriously. This is no joke. This is 50% of our senate seats.

Obviously he was not vetted. that proves he was not taken seriously. They did not do their jobs.

[legalsnugs]

He filed in March, the primary was in June. You'd think in 3 months someone could have run a background check on the guy. His opponent could have said something, anything, about him, or at least found out what his campaign planks were. But the point is, a majority of the SC democrats voted for him, so he's the Democratic candidate for the US Senate. And maybe, just to make a nice change, the SCDP should take him seriously. This is no joke. This is 50% of our senate seats.

Obviously he was not vetted. that proves he was not taken seriously. They did not do their jobs.

Obviously. But if you were running for a major federal office, would you not check into your competition? A little bit? To just see if there WAS any competition there? I agree - no one did their jobs here, including South Carolina voters. I hope they all learned something because we're all going to be stuck with Jim "Waterloo" Demint for another six freaking years.

[Chronos]

They checked, found that he had no campaign presence whatsoever, and concluded that there was no competition there.

[Kolga]

S.C. is going to vote for DeMint regardless of his opponent. This is the state that continued to send Strom Thurmond to D.C. years after he was verifiably senile. (I clerked for Hollings one summer when Hollings and Thurmond were still the senators from S.C., and the stories he told us of Thurmond's senility were hilarious and horrifying at the same time).

[legalsnugs]

They checked, found that he had no campaign presence whatsoever, and concluded that there was no competition there.

So you're saying that Greene was vetted? So who screwed up here, because he WON the competition!


I wonder what Demint is going to do with his $3 million war chest. He can take a page from the Greene playbook here. He doesn't have to say a single word or spend a single dollar, and he'll still win the election.

My pipe dream is that Sheheen, the Democrat, will win the governorship and Demint will be convicted of a felony. Any felony will do. Then Sheheen will name a Democrat as senator! Yes, it's a quite a stretch that it might occur within six years, considering how slowly investigations, charges, trials, etc., move, but it's still my dream, and it might be the only way to get a Democratic senator in South Carolina.

[Chronos]

So you're saying that Greene was vetted? So who screwed up here, because he WON the competition!My best guess is that Vic Rawl just managed to piss off a lot of the electorate somehow. Certainly, it doesn't reflect well on him that he was able to lose to someone who wasn't running.

[Zsofia]

A headline on wistv.com today - "Alvin Greene Howls and Wails At Reporter". Good times!

[legalsnugs]

A headline on wistv.com today - "Alvin Greene Howls and Wails At Reporter". Good times!

I hope everyone who voted for him is appropriately ashamed. :(