Anchorage runs out of ballots

[Chefguy]

In the recent muni election in Anchorage, AK, several polling places ran out of ballots and envelopes. It was only several hundred and the election outcome would not have been affected. While Alaska is not the new Texas (or Florida) in terms of voting fraud, it casts some doubt on the electoral process there. The left is crying 'foul', the right is shrugging it off as meaningless (I guess the sanctity of the Constitution only applies when convenient).

In a city that has historically been hard-put to turn out even 20% of the voting public, one would think having enough ballots would not be an issue. When I was voting there, the bigger issue was the changing of the polling places and the lack of signage to tell you where it was. Ours was moved to an obscure building down a potholed and rutted side street, with a complete lack of signage. Apathy is rampant, from voters to election officials. It seems that every election nowadays has more and more problems with ballots and ballot security. The debacle in Florida (Bush-Gore) and some others since seem to point out that not only is our election process corrupt, some states don't even bother to try to hide it. It makes me wonder just who the "socialists" are, and if perhaps "fascist" is a better term.

[silenus]

I lived in Anchorage back when it still had people and they never had that problem. Apathy ran rampant, but there were always enough ballots for the people who bothered to show up.

[mhendo]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that apathy sat around and watched TV? Running rampant sounds like far too much effort.

[Exapno Mapcase]

It's hard to claim that apathy is rampant in presidential elections. Look at percentage turn out of voting age population since that "corrupt" election of 2000.

2000 51.30%
2004 55.27%
2008 57.48%

The last is the best percentage since 1968. It's a higher percentage than FDR's first election or Truman's or any in the 1920s. It's almost exactly that of the first election with results, and that's 1828.

It's even harder to claim apathy in Anchorage's election, since the very article you cite says that the problems were caused by unusually high voting numbers at some precincts.

But problems with insufficient ballots or, more accurately, ballots not being allocated in the precise numbers or percentages that turn out to be needed after the fact, happen every year in a multitude of locations and always have as far back as you want to name. There is nothing new about this, nothing that corresponds to voter apathy, nothing that suggests corruption of any form.

This OP seems to be wrong in every possible way.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

It's hard to claim that apathy is rampant in presidential elections. Look at percentage turn out of voting age population since that "corrupt" election of 2000.

2000 51.30%
2004 55.27%
2008 57.48%

The last is the best percentage since 1968. It's a higher percentage than FDR's first election or Truman's or any in the 1920s. It's almost exactly that of the first election with results, and that's 1828.

It seems to me that this argument begs the question of what constitutes apathy. Some people might look at a turnout of 57.48% and say, "Amazing commitment to the political process." Others might exclaim, "Wow, is that all? Americans really are an apathetic bunch."

UK elections, for example, have averaged well over 70% turnout in the post-WWII period, and even during the relative apathy of the last decade the turnout only (barely) slipped below 60% on one occasion. Canada's average turnout in federal lower house elections (i.e., the election that determines the Prime Minister) in the period 1960-1995 was 74%. Japan was 71%. New Zealand 88%.

What is your benchmark for apathy?

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by mhendo

...
What is your benchmark for apathy?

Less than three voters.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

It's hard to claim that apathy is rampant in presidential elections. Look at percentage turn out of voting age population since that "corrupt" election of 2000.

2000 51.30%
2004 55.27%
2008 57.48%

The last is the best percentage since 1968. It's a higher percentage than FDR's first election or Truman's or any in the 1920s. It's almost exactly that of the first election with results, and that's 1828.

These are national figures, not Alaska figures, and not relevant to my comments.

It's even harder to claim apathy in Anchorage's election, since the very article you cite says that the problems were caused by unusually high voting numbers at some precincts.

I was speaking of the electorate in general, not in this specific case. But 50,000 votes in a population of over 250,000 seems a bit light to me. The turnout may have been higher than expected, but when elections typically poll less that 20%, it doesn't take much to exceed expectations.

But problems with insufficient ballots or, more accurately, ballots not being allocated in the precise numbers or percentages that turn out to be needed after the fact, happen every year in a multitude of locations and always have as far back as you want to name. There is nothing new about this, nothing that corresponds to voter apathy, nothing that suggests corruption of any form.

And you have a cite for this statement? Nobody is asking for 'precise'. 'Enough' would have been nice. I participated in every election in Alaska (national, state and local) from 1998 through 2009. Turnout was, and remains, abysmally low. Corruption in Alaska is a well-documented problem, with both national and local politicos indicted and convicted. In a state with those sorts of problems, it's natural to suspect corruption in the voting process.

This OP seems to be wrong in every possible way.

Bullshit.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

'Enough' would have been nice....
Corruption in Alaska ... suspect corruption in the voting process.

I think it was Phineas T. Ockham who wrote "Don't attribute to corruption that which can be explained by incompetence." Still the preemptive dismissal of possible corruption seems odd.

But why not just do what airlines do? When there are more tickets than chairs, tickets are bought in for cash. With more voters than ballots, can't someone just pay some voters not to vote?

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by septimus

I think it was Phineas T. Ockham who wrote "Don't attribute to corruption that which can be explained by incompetence." Still the preemptive dismissal of possible corruption seems odd.

But why not just do what airlines do? When there are more tickets than chairs, tickets are bought in for cash. With more voters than ballots, can't someone just pay some voters not to vote?

I prefer to believe incompetence over corruption in this case, as there have been fine examples of both up there. There was the time that they "forgot" to send out the election information booklets until after the election, and the time they left candidates and issues out of the booklet. I put nothing past the oil companies and their bought officials (see my cite above for ample evidence). At one point in a legislative session, representatives of VECO were handing slips of paper to legislators telling them how to vote. A Democrat stood up and condemned them all roundly and was shouted down by one Republican (a fine "how dare you accuse us of such things, sir" speech), Bruce Weyrauch, who was later convicted of corruption payoffs from that very company.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by silenus

I lived in Anchorage back when it still had people....

Huh. Has Anchorage been losing population?

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

In a city that has historically been hard-put to turn out even 20% of the voting public, one would think having enough ballots would not be an issue.

I think this logic is flawed.

Given that the percentage of people who vote is not particularly close to 100%, it doesn't make economic sense to print enough ballots for all registered voters. You print enough for the expected turnout, plus a buffer based on some statistical analysis of historical voting numbers.

Probably, the buffer should be bigger if the expected turnout is 20% than if it's 70%, since there's a lot more room for unexpected voters to show up in the first case, but that's the only thing that should be effected by the expected turnout.

So, was the turnout for this election way higher than precedented, or is Alaska running elections with too small a buffer (given historical variation)?

[NorthernBiker]

You are right about the voter apathy in general elections. Perhaps the city should do some pre election polling to gauge the response (since ballot measures differ from year to year) instead of relying on historic trends. I don't think it is so much certain political parties not caring about proper elections as opposed to the winners (conservatives) got their favored results and the (liberals) did not. I think if the results had been opposite the conservatives would be screaming and the response from the liberals would be more muted.

It is a travesty that some people were not able to vote. I'm surprised there is no policy for filling out non standard ballots in this case of running out. I've been lucky and had the same polling station for 20 years. In fact my parents had been voting there even before I could.

As a whole, I wouldn't say Anchorage is corrupt and most elections run just fine. If you want to talk about corruption, it is at a state level, looking at you Sean Parnell, many legislators and a certain GOP state party.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

The left is crying 'foul', the right is shrugging it off as meaningless (I guess the sanctity of the Constitution only applies when convenient).

Cite? I don't see any sign that anyone on either side is seeing this as a partisan issue or claiming deliberate disenfranchisement. Even the ACLU is just saying it needs to be looked into, not making any allegations.

AFAICT it looks like a standard bureaucratic fuckup.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Huh. Has Anchorage been losing population?

Well, they started expelling illegals. No more anchorage babies.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, they started expelling illegals. No more anchorage babies.

[d8uv]

Current Anchorage resident here.

I actually live across the street from one of the mentioned polling places, and they turned me away. I managed to get to the UAA Student Union just in time to beat the massive rush. I only spent an hour there. Everyone after me... probably weren't as lucky.

In terms of local radio, a bunch of people are yelling disenfranchisment, but... I actually think the conservative dicks are right. The margin of victory was large enough that another round of voting would be a purely academic exercise. An exercise that would stop local government cold for a month while the shit gets sorted.

Plus, I'm apathetic. So there is that.

[crowmanyclouds]

Clearly another voting problem that would be eliminated by . . . requiring photo IDs!

CMC fnord!

[Exapno Mapcase]

The Fascists have taken over Australia!

VOTERS have been handed scraps of paper with scrawled handwriting to vote on at a key election booth after a shortage of ballot papers.

In a major embarassment for the Electoral Commission Queensland's running of today's local government elections, voters were handed the pieces of paper torn from a notebook instead of ballot papers upon arriving at Wilston State School to vote in the Brisbane City Council poll.

As I said, this happens all the time, everywhere, in every election. But this one - and the accompanying picture - was so funny I had to share it.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

The Fascists have taken over Australia!

As I said, this happens all the time, everywhere, in every election. But this one - and the accompanying picture - was so funny I had to share it.

There's no excuse for it at all in Australia. Voting is compulsory, and they should know pretty much exactly how many ballots they're going to need.

The only way something like this might be excused is if a massively disproportionate number of people turned up to one particular polling place, but even then they should be able to call to another polling place and have ballots transferred.