New Hampshire towns can legally misrepresent election results

As I previously reported, the website for the town of Kingston, NH falsified the town’s vote totals, concealing the existence of any votes for candidates other than Democrats and Republicans. I sent a written complaint to the Attorney General’s office over a month ago. Today I finally got a response from Assistant Attorney General Brian Buonamano. It says, in part:

While I recognize your frustration in not seeing your chosen candidates on the document displayed by the town, there is no New Hampshire law that prohibits a town from posting additional, informal, or partial reports of election results. Given that the full results were publicly reported consistent with New Hampshire law, I do not share your conclusion that the Town of Kingston has sought to deceive members of the public.

Reporting some votes and concealing others on an official website is deception by any standard I can think of. According to the Attorney General’s office, though, they can legally get away with it, as long as the correct results are reported somewhere else. From what Buonamano says, it would appear they can report just one party’s votes, or just the votes for their favorite candidates, if they feel like it.

Is it any wonder that so many people don’t trust the election process?

Posted in General. Tags: , , . Comments Off on New Hampshire towns can legally misrepresent election results

My votes were concealed in Kingston, NH

On November 8, I voted for Gary Johnson and other Libertarian Party candidates. I live and voted in Kingston, NH. However, according to the town website, my votes vanished. The town clerk’s site has a link to a PDF listing vote totals. It lists no votes for any candidates outside the Democratic and Republican parties. Most of my votes were thrown out as if I had never voted. (See update at the end of this post.)
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in General. Tags: , , . Comments Off on My votes were concealed in Kingston, NH

Why do Democrats support DMV voter registration?

Under a new California law, people who get a driver’s license or state identification card will be automatically registered to vote. From what I’m seeing, Democrats are generally applauding it while Republicans are suspicious of it. The practical effects are bound to be similar to voter ID requirements. People who are eligible for IDs will be waved past a hurdle toward voting. People who don’t get an ID will have to register the old way, and this may become more difficult since it won’t be as routine in the future. The burden will fall most heavily on people who can’t afford cars or otherwise can’t get a driver’s license. They can still get the alternate ID, but those at the economic bottom may not bother. The same people might not be able to vote under an ID requirement, for similar reasons.

Oddly, the people who support DMV registration generally oppose strong ID requirements, and vice versa. Shouldn’t the people who oppose making it harder for the poorest to vote also oppose making it disproportionately easy for the non-poor to vote? My best guess is that looking at the issues from the perspective of entitlement is what makes them appear opposite. Both DMV registration and absence of ID requirements make it possible for people to vote with the least amount of effort. I think the real concern in both cases is that people might have to expend some effort in order to vote and choose not to, not that ID requirements will skew elections.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in General. Tags: , , . Comments Off on Why do Democrats support DMV voter registration?