Election Poll: 198 more votes
12
June
6/12/2009 Update:
Ballots counted, Zimmer still not happy
The provisional and missing absentee ballots were counted today – and despite losing by 163 votes, Councilwoman Dawn Zimmer was overheard talking about a “recount,” although no official announcement has been made as to what will happen now.
Here’s the total vote count:
Peter Cammarano
Prior votes: 6043
Today’s Absentee: 63
Today’s Provisionals:82
TOTAL VOTES: 6188
Dawn Zimmer
Prior votes: 5974
Today’s Absentee: 15
Today’s Provisionals: 36
TOTAL VOTES: 6025
6/12/2009:
Will this drag on for weeks?
Note: This is just for updates about the provisional / absentee ballot count.. I will not be publishing any reader comments in this chat…
6/11/2009:
The never ending election
Like a bad horror movie, Hoboken elections never seem to be over.
Now we have 79 “found” absentee ballots, along with 122 provisional ballots that will be counted Friday morning at 10am.
Personally, I find the whole election process in our country / county / city so flawed.
Look at all these holes in the system:
- You don’t need to present ID at the polls
- You may have moved to another city, and still be on the voter rolls (even years after) – I spoke with four people who moved out of Hoboken, yet still voted (for both candidates).
- Your ballot can get thrown out because your signature didn’t match (yet they don’t ask for ID). Who makes this determination? A hand-writing expert? Some people change their signatures all the time.
- Voting machines have been proven to be easily tampered with.
You know? Why make it so complicated and bureaucratic?
Might as well switch to an “applause meter” – and instead of voting – just say “In order to vote – please gather at Pier A Park at 7pm Tuesday, where you can “cheer” for your candidate. The candidate with the loudest applause wins.”
Anyway – as it stands currently (with machine votes, and absentees already counted) – Peter Cammarano leads Dawn Zimmer by 67 votes (6043 to 5976).
Will this be over tomorrow morning – or are we in for more challenges, court hearings or even a (gasp) third election?
Loading ...
June 14th 2009 - 16:13:25 |
Does a clean election include the 79 “misplaced” ballots left under a table overnight and “found” the next morning by the same election officials who felt it acceptable to visit Cammarano’s post-election party violating even the appearance of neutrality that their positions demand?
In response to professor pinetop who said:
if it was fixed the victor’s slate of at-large candidates would be in too.
the people spoke. we want a confident, competent mayor who can think on his feet and read a contract and an intelligent council that will not be simply a rubber stamp to the mayor.
we have an opportunity for greatness here if we can get beyond politics. as a second ward resident i will be exceedingly well served now but i will not begrudge ravi or carol if they spend time helping people from all over the city; as at-large, that is their job. congratulations to all; now get to work. there is much to do and it needs to be done fast.
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 00:09:09 |
On a second reading of your post, I agree that I misread your comments about Ravi and Carol, and jumped to the wrong conclusion interpreting your comments concerning Ravi and Carol. Consider those comments withdrawn.
In any event, the fact that Dawn’s council slate has swept Peter’s council slate is hardly consolation for what feels like Peter’s “dream team”’s misconduct with respect to his improbable showing on absentee ballots.
If there’s nothing to hide about how Peter’s absentee ballots were handled, let’s let the light shine in. Mayors serve for four years. Let’s get it right. Plenty of Peter’s supporters are gloating that once this election went to the county, the fix was in and Dawn never had a chance. Let’s see if they’re right.
You write:
“if dawn won on absentee ballots i might look askance because she has a history of something not quite right about absentee ballots”
you bet you’d “look askance”. I suspect you’d be looking askance with a microscope, and would be urging your candidate to do the same. Here’s hoping Dawn does the same.
Finally, on the council race, if so many of Peter’s supporters hadn’t “bullet” voted for Peter, he might have had some coattails to offer his slate. However, he abandoned his second council slate, just as he used and abused his first council slate (all the while oddly claiming that somehow Beth Mason was responsible for the fact that Peter got 1,200 more votes than his three council slate candidates on May 12 (and if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere to sell you)). Peter’s always been about promoting Peter, and the results in round 2 leave no doubt that once again he’s used his council slate to promote Peter, demanding that they make glowing comments about him, all the while kicking his team to the curb.
In response to professor pinetop who said:
you are dead wrong. my candidate tanked in the first round. i liked mason first, then vincent. do i think pete will make a better mayor than dawn? yes. do they both have support from the hcdo? yes. i have lived here for over 25 years and have seen many elections that felt as though mass cheating happened. not so this time. if dawn won on absentee ballots i might look askance because she has a history of something not quite right about absentee ballots but with a plurality of 160 votes i would probably give it a rest. sorry your gal lost. that is the nature of elections.
next time make sure your candidate does not abstain on big issues, learns how to come up with snappy answers to questions outside the local issues and is better prepared for public debate. if dawn wastes time and money on a recount, that is her business. i do not think the process was tainted this time.
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 11:13:06 |
you’re making an extreme argument about laziness and polling places. a polling place within a reasonable distance to your house, with numerous ways to get there, is not a hurdle. but i know the point you’re trying to make.
getting other governmental or private services are not rights, that’s why no one cares if they require ID to get those services. voting is a right, and having an ID is a requirement that some people are against. I could care less, as I stated before, I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that everyone chooses to ignore when mentioning requiring an ID – it’s a hurdle, that some believe is unconstitutional. that’s all i’m saying. i don’t see what the argument is. this is just a simple fact.
In response to Easy-E who said:
I’m lazy, and your polling place is a hurdle for me to vote. I demand there be a polling location on my block. Better yet, can’t they just wheel it into my apartment? Oh and could we make it for 7pm, because I have to work, and Dancing with the Stars is on at 8, and I can’t miss that.
Sorry, it’s no more a hurdle than having proper credentials to get any governmental or private service. Maybe 50 years ago it was a problem, but in this day and age, it takes no time to get access to the info you need.
I highly doubt that the number is even 1% of the population. Even still, people who are that down and out, how many of them do you actually believe vote? Part of being a good citizen is keeping your affairs in order, if you can’t even apply for an ID, what’s the point?
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 13:21:22 |
Hobokeneer wrote:
“If there’s nothing to hide about how Peter’s absentee ballots were handled, let’s let the light shine in.”
I’d say bring it on: if Peter’s ballots were handled inappropriately, then let’s punish the perpetrators and redo the whole election. But, then we will also look into Dawn’s ballots and especially her ticket’s ballots. You could argue there are suspicious numbers there too. For example, didn’t Carol and Rhavi get more votes then Dawn did? Let’s face it, many more people voted for Carol this time than four years ago when SHE was the mayoral candidate. I’d say we should investigate everyone.
Let’s also look into how Dawn got elected two years ago: back then if you suggested on H411 that Dawn used the HCDO money to win, people would attack you like a bunch of wild coyotes. But, if you read her sworn depositions (hoboken411.com/archives/17714), you would find that she actually did cheat with Carol Marsh.
BTW, it was Beth Mason who suggested that the state attorney general should look into voter fraud two years ago: Zimmer and her gang refused to sign on.
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 13:52:47 |
Brady – you keep harping about rights and ignoring responsibilities. The government has a responsibility to insure voting is a privledge that only those legally entitled to vote get to enjoy. That is why you need to check ID’s, purge voter rolls, etc…. Nobody is suggesting not letting people vote, just that there be reasonable assurances that fraud is minimized. Folks have an absolute right to vote if they meet the right criteria (age, non-felon status & citizenship/residency being the 3 that come to mind). But you still have to meet those criteria. A simple ID check is by far the best way to do this and as ID’s are pretty ubiquitous, it isn’t a burden for voters to have to present one. Last time I checked folks had a right to access to healthcare (not to mention all sorts of other services) & they checked for IDs. By the way – the government disagrees w/ you. Even they agree that if you meet certain criteria then access to services like food stamps, welfare, unemployment, social security, etc… is a right. But again, you still have to meet the criteria to get access to those services.
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 18:42:43 |
At this time, we don’t know where Dawn stands: however, she has announced a press conference at 8:30 am, tomorrow at 618 Washington St. Time will tell…
Login or Register to reply
June 15th 2009 - 19:18:58 |
No one is suggesting putting something in place that will strip someone of their rights. If it’s your right, then prove it.
It’s as simple as that.
You have rights as a US citizen, you have a right to re-entry into the US when you travel abroad. You still have to prove you are who you say you are.
If you lose your passport, are your rights being violated because you cannot prove that you are who you say you are?
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to court, everywhere else, you aren’t Joe Shmoe until you produce some sort of ID saying you are.
In response to bradykp who said:
getting other governmental or private services are not rights, that’s why no one cares if they require ID to get those services. voting is a right, and having an ID is a requirement that some people are against. I could care less, as I stated before, I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that everyone chooses to ignore when mentioning requiring an ID – it’s a hurdle, that some believe is unconstitutional. that’s all i’m saying. i don’t see what the argument is. this is just a simple fact.
Login or Register to reply