Confusing North Carolina Ballot Leaves off Votes for President

Huffington Post by Diane Tucker | Oct. 27, 2008 (Investigative Report)

In North Carolina, a straight-party vote counter-intuitively does not include a vote for president. Voters must make a separate mark under the Presidential Contest box.

On Election Day 2008, there will probably be more voters than there were in 2004, and many of them will be first-time voters. "I believe as many as 100,000 votes for president could be lost this time around," [Lawrence Norden, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice at the ... Full Story »

Posted by Chris Finnie

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: Presidential Election 2008, Election Reform
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Chris Finnie - Oct 27, 2008 - 3:04 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Chris Finnie (review), Mary Ziegenhagen (review), Dwight Rousu (review)
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Chris Finnie - Oct 27, 2008 - 3:04 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Chris Finnie
4.4
 by Chris Finnie - Oct. 27, 2008

Since this matches reports from other states, it seems credible that these problems are already surfacing and have not been addressed since the last election.

If 100,000 votes are lost in any state, I predict at least 50,000 REALLY pissed voters. I can't believe these well-known and documented problems haven't been fixed. No wonder everybody is advocating paper mail-in ballots.

Chris posted this story.
See Full Review » (13 answers)
Dwight Rousu
4.3
 by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 28, 2008

The problem is described well, along with it's probable disproportionate impact upon the less educated, immigrants, and the elderly. It leaves unanswered questions about why the poorly designed ballot was not changed, or if there were even efforts to change it. Also, what are the current polls in North Carolina, and how likely is this to make a difference? Is this a paper ballot, or a machine ballot?

If it is broken, fix it.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Mary Ziegenhagen
5.0
 by Mary Ziegenhagen - Oct. 27, 2008
See Full Review » (5 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.5

Very good
from 3 reviews (30% confidence)
Quality
4.6
Facts
4.7
Fairness
4.7
Information
5.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
3.5
Enterprise
4.5
Popularity
4.5
Recommendation
4.7
Credibility
4.7
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!