Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Durant-Alicea: A Summary

By

http://www.webstertimes.net/pd…

  If the link doesn’t take you to the story, it is in the Webster Times, 1/28/11, page 6. I think it is well worth searching for.

  Mr. Alicea and or his supporters should give up the quest to steal the election now, thus giving Mr. Alicea a shred of credibility if he intended to run for office in the future.

  I find it highly curious that everything improper happens in the same precinct of the same city, by the same hispanic sounding last names.

  Don’t even go there, some of my best friends are hispanic. If it was Webster, I’d slam the Polacks. BTW, I’m Polish.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Amazing that this paper can’t bother to include an image of the ballot, which shows voter intent to Alicea rather clearly.  I guess the facts get in the way of the story.

    • The voter voted for Charlie Baker and Tim Cahill for Governor, McKenna for AG, and filled in a circle ABOVE all of the candidates for State Representative. Perhaps this was their way of indicating “None of the Above.” A few wisps of the pen stroke dribbled into Alicea’s circle, but it can scarcely be 100% certain that the voter absolutely intended that that circle was a vote for Alicea.

      <

      p>This is to say nothing of the shenanigans in Southbridge. Alicea would have a much stronger case if it was a party line ballot where the voter missed 98% of his circle. That he/she missed 98% of his circle and did not have a discernible method to their voting preferences makes his position even weaker.  
      Alicea should have won this election in a landslide. He didn’t think it would be close and didn’t campaign and ducked all but one debate. It’s his own fault that he is going to lose.

      • Can you supply a link to a picture of this ballot so that we can see for ourselves what it looks like?

      • It’s very sloppy all around, but I would count it for the following races.

        <

        p>GOVERNOR – overvote, therefore no vote
        SECRETARY – no vote indicated
        AG – vote for McKenna
        Congress – Richard Neal
        State Senator – completely outside any circle, thus no vote
        State Rep. – mostly Alcea, especially given how the others look, therefore vote for Alcea

        •    Read about all the improprieties. Charges of election tampering should be brought.
             

          • Bring the charges and re-run the election.  If the election is tainted, it’s tainted in both directions and neither a Republican or Democratic winner would have legitimacy.

            • Re-running the election is just what Alicea wants. He didn’t take the first one seriously, but he would now? Sorry you don’t get that chance.

              <

              p>Imagine you worked your ass off preparing for a job interview while someone else just about blew it off. After the employer hired you, the other person claimed that they wanted another interview because they weren’t well prepared for the first one.

              <

              p>Durant worked his ass off with a minimal budget. He campaigned vigorously in the district and offered to debate numerous times.

              <

              p>Alicea blew off every debate except one. He didn’t do much campaigning in the district. He had almost twice the money of Durant, but didn’t spend it.

              <

              p>Durant won election night.

              <

              p>Durant won the recount.

              <

              p>The only way Alicea wins is by “flipping a few votes.”

              <

              p>Those of you that were outraged by the legal maneuverings of the 2000 Presidential Election should be just as outraged if this election is stolen by the rightful winner. Alicea has only himself to blame for the situation that he now finds himself in. Now he’s trying to re-run it because he didn’t win the first one.

              <

              p>You need to show up for election day with you “A” game. Durant brought his. Alicea brought his “D” game and now wants a do-over?

              <

              p>It’s time to end this nonsense and seat Durant. If Alicea wants to run again, he should spend the next two years in the district doing what he should have done June-November this year.

              • There shouldn’t be a do-over because one candidate wasn’t prepared; there should be a do-over because there is a questionable ballot which could produce an exact tie.

                • There is also a ballot where a voter put a dot in Durant’s circle and it wasn’t counted.

                  <

                  p>If the roles were reversed, as they were for Matthew Patrick, Durant would have been sworn in by now and this silliness put to rest.

                  <

                  p>Either way we should have the ruling this week.

                  <

                  p>The House will then rule, and hopefully seat Durant next week.

                • Maybe it wasn’t counted because all other circles for other races were completely filled in and this looked like a stray mark, but I’d want to see for myself to judge like I have for the ballot in question.

            •    There are way too many instances of impropriety in favor of Alicea. He lost, tried to cheat, and failed! Man up!

                • This is what Billixi believes to be cheating, Alicea getting clarification on this vote, for some reason he thinks this person was voting for him:

                  <

                  p>

                  <

                  p>No idea why????  I can’t see it.

                • If you look here:

                  <

                  p>http://www.telegram.com/assets…

                  <

                  p>You’d see that the voter did not vote for Deval Patrick, Martha Coakley, Bill Galvin, or Steve Grossman.

                  <

                  p>But we’re 100% sure that filling in 5% of Alicea’s oval meant a vote for him?

                  <

                  p>He/she couldn’t have started to fill in the oval, decided after a few strokes that they did not want to vote for him, and thus made a larger circle above Alicea’s oval indicating that their wish was “None of the Below?”

                  <

                  p>The Durant ballot in question had circles filled in for other votes but only a small dot in the middle of Durant’s oval. This vote did not go to him and arguably his oval contained as much pen inside of it as Alicea’s oval above.

                  <

                  p>Again, Alicea should have blown out this race, took it for granted, and lost. Instead of faulting himself for a poor campaign, and conceding to his hard working and underfunded challenger, he seeks remedy through the court since he didn’t win on November 2nd.

                  <

                  p>Do we expect anything else in Massachusetts?

                  <

                  p>And if the judge rules in Alicea’s favor, how long before his court’s budget is increased and the checks flow in?

                • How the voter did or didn’t vote in other races bears nothing on how he voted for state rep.  Your scenario for that race is not plausible.  Voters are allowed to get a new ballot if they spoil their first one.  You still haven’t produced the Durant ballot with the alleged dot.  There are so many questions at this point I would just declare a tie as a matter of principle and let the voters try again.

                • Granted each vote is separate, which is why I laugh each election when the state GOP puts all it’s eggs in the top of the ticket with the belief that a vote for Governor/Senator = a vote for Treasurer/State Senator when in reality one has little bearing on the other. At the same time, the Democratic party provides support to ALL of it’s ticket. The results tend to speak for themselves.

                  <

                  p>It does have some bearing on determining the voter’s mindset and intent though with reasonable certainty. If the ticket was a straight Dem or GOP ticket, once could infer their mindset better. A split ballot makes it much more difficult.

                  <

                  p>This does not mean that, “well there’s a 15% chance the voter meant to vote for Alicea, so let’s count it for him.” As the law states from the Secretary of State’s website:

                  <

                  p>All parties to a recount should keep in mind in their examination of the ballots that the will of the voters, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty, must be given effect. If the marks on the ballot fairly indicate the voter’s intent, the vote should be counted in accordance with that intent, as long as the voter has essentially complied with the election law. The voter is not to be disenfranchised because of minor irregularities. Where, however, the ballot is marked in a way that leaves the intent of the voter unclear, the vote should not be counted.

                  <

                  p>Does the mark fairly indicate the voter’s intent AND can be determined with reasonable certainty AND the voter complied with election law?

                  <

                  p>Perhaps on the first, No on the second, and no on the third (voted for two candidates for Governor)

                  <

                  p>The ballot is marked in a way that leaves the intent of the voter unclear.

                  <

                  p>Period.

                  <

                  p>No vote.

                  <

                  p>Alicea does not get his do-over.

                  <

                  p>BTW Durant won Christopher. He does not have to produce anything. If you’d like, see here:

                  <

                  p>http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele… page 45
                  SIXTH WORCESTER DISTRICT
                  Geraldo Alicea, of Charlton (Democratic) has  6,586
                  Peter Durant, of Spencer (Republican) has 6,587
                  and appears to be elected.
                  All Others 3
                  Blanks  357
                  Total Votes Cast 13,533

                • …the intent of the voter is unclear on the ballot in question.  It’s not as if the mark is partly in one bubble and partly in the other.

                • According to court decision, all parties to a recount should keep in mind in their examination of the ballots that the will of the voter, if it can be determined with reasonable certainty, must be given effect.

                  <

                  p>This is really the argument. Can the will of the voter be reasonably determined?

                  <

                  p>Christoper, you think that there is no doubt of the intention of the voter? How sure are you? 100%? 75%? 50%? 10%? (Which is about how much of the circle was filled in.)

                  <

                  p>We’ll have to agree to disagree. If the ballot had originally been ruled 2-1 to count for Alicea, I might disagree with throwing it out. But it was a 2-1 decision that it should not be counted.

                  <

                  p>Durant won. Let’s seat him and move on.  

                • don’t know how anyone could honestly say that the voter was not voting for Alicea.  

                  <

                  p>You just need to deal with it.

                • So if you appear to vote for a Democrat, you didn’t really vote for a Democrat.  Maybe you’d prefer Hosni Mubarak’s new job to be Mass. Secretary?

  2. I have relatives in the district who are staunch Alicea voters and out of the 5 registered voters only one bothered to get out and vote that day (or send in an absentee ballot).  One of their reasons was that they thought that Alicea had the seat won relatively easily and they were not interested in any of the other races.

    <

    p>Just one example of how your vote does matter.  Send them weekly emails on the recount and trial and remind them that had they bothered to vote that none of this would be happening.  I can guarantee with some really high certainty that they will never ever miss an election again.

    <

    p>Let this be a lesson for all.

  3. His credibility is only increased by this recount. He’s making sure all votes are counted properly and showing his passion for the job he clearly loves.

    • Twice

      <

      p>He lost both times.

      <

      p>That’s the reality he is seeking to change.

      <

      p>If he clearly loved his job than perhaps he should have worked harder to keep it.

      <

      p>Face it. He thought he had it locked up so he put in a half-ass effort. Then when he lost, they brought Charlie Murphy and a brigade of lawyers in to “flip a few votes.”

      <

      p>Alicea should concede, work his tail off in the community over the next two years and rebuild his reputation for a run in 2012.

      <

      p>Then he might take the election seriously.

Archives