INDEPENDENTS EXCLUDED FROM BEING ELECTION INSPECTORS
New Analysis & Commentary by John Charlton
(Nov. 20, 2009) — There used to be the saying, “It’s a one party State!”, to signify that one of the major parties, Democrats or Republicans, controlled the entire state government. Usually this was applied to states controlled by the Democrats, like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, fiefdom of the Kennedy Klan.
But Madison County’s rules for the hiring of election inspectors merit the coining of a new phrase, “It’s a 2 party State!”
Why? Because you must be either a registered Democrat or a registered Republican to be considered to be hired as an Election Inspector.
That’s right, a violation of the civil rights of all who are not registered in one of the 2 major parties.
The Madison County Board of Elections website makes no bones about it:
Are you interested in becoming an Election Day Inspector? Madison County hires more than 200 inspectors for each election. Applicants must be a registered voter in Madison County (18 years or older), a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party, and enjoy people and service to others.
For complete information and a preliminary application, download Be An Election Inspector (pdf).
It is not ascertainable at this time, why Madison County officials think independent voters are biased.
However, there is evidence that the Madison County Board of Elections can’t count votes. Madison county’s largest city is Oneida. And on election night, there were 3 districts in this county which reported that the third-party candidate, Doug Hoffman, received zero votes. An error of evidently giving some 500+ votes due Hoffman to Scozzafava. How does such an error happen?
The official results of the NY-23 special election, in Madison country, reported as of tonight, show that Hoffman won by 9,155 to Owens’ 8,290. But on Nov. 6th, at 3 pm, a much different tally was reported: 8,553 to 8,059. Notice that in the recount Hoffman garnered 602 votes and Owens 131. In a county where Hoffman lead Owens by a very close margin, that wide-margin discrepancy in the vote count is mathematically impossible without purposeful bias by Election officials or intentional sabotage of voting machines to disfavor Hoffman.
It should be noted that Scozzafava’s husband is a local union official; and that Scozzafava endorsed Owens only days before the election. That action seemingly signaled that tainting the vote count was the order of the day, for the two parties had become one.
It seems increasingly likely that there was no democratic election in the NY-23rd special election; there was a Democratic Selection of the winner, beginning with a series of events which are highly improbably without some sort of conspiratorial agreements: the move by the Owen’s campaign to impound voting machines on election night, via court order, which was granted; the introduction of a virus into voting machines causing them to malfunction the night of the election or just before the election; the decision of election officials not to inform other counties of the virus’ discovery, the concerted effort of the media to emphasize the Owen’s “victory”, on the basis of districts under-reporting Hoffman’s vote count; the quick move by Pelosi to swear Owens into office before the State of New York certified the election, and the insistence by Democratic party officials that a concession speech is irrevocable, as if a speech determined the election and not votes.
If the Democratic party believes that a concession speech determines an election, and not the certified tally of the votes of U.S. citizens, then why do they persist in using the adjective “democratic”?