Presidential Race Maps Writing on the Wall Voices on the Ground The Obama Project
Voices on the Ground
Courtesy of Flickr user Kurt Dietrich

Pundits spend much of their time listening to each other. We’re more interested in listening to you. Voices on the Ground tracks events and opinion on the ground, from snapshots and reports sent in by our readers and correspondents across the nation to homegrown political advertisements on YouTube.

While we are interested in anything you have to say about the current election, on occasion we will post a new hot topic that we feel needs more discussion.

Hot Topic

THE OBAMA PROJECT: What Does The Election of Barack Obama Mean To You?

Let your voice be heard

« Older posts Newer posts »

Election 2008: The Privilege Of Citizenship

Posted Jan 17, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Sondra Myers, Scranton, Pennsylvania

My most poignant experience of Election 2008: canvassing with my Los Angeles based son and his 8 year old daughter in a housing project in Scranton, PA.  Knocking on doors and seeing a lot of children, and many women, some of whom had voted and others planning to, some not registered and some not eligible. But in all cases more or less happy to have had a knock on the door. We know that voting is a privilege, and citizenship is a precious and, alas, rare privilege in the world; these people who are seldom called upon to act as citizens remind me how important it is to include those who are so often left behind. So in the realm of good deeds, keep in mind that asking/bringing/helping people in to the world of citizenship is important--for the individual and for the society.

 

THE OBAMA PROJECT: Call For Submissions

Posted Dec 17, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Maurice Berger, Political Director, PollTrack, New York, New Mexico

PollTrack has just come off a very successful campaign season, tracking the most exciting presidential election in a generation (along with more than 20 US Senate races). With more than 220,000 visitors in the first two-and-half months of our launch we had visitors from every state in the union and 108 nations. One feature of the site, VOICES ON THE GROUND, invited contributions from artists, writers, observers, scholars, students, and others who helped us track the election from the perspective of where it mattered the most: with voters on the ground.
 
As we approach the inauguration of President-Elect Obama, VOICES launches The Obama Project--an online forum for commentary, analysis, poetry, photographs, and YouTube content that explores the following questions: What Does The Election of Barack Obama Mean To You? And What Does it Mean for The Nation?
 
We ask you to submit texts (from a single line to 2,000 words), photographs, or content you've posted on YouTube. We will be uploading content on an ongoing basis through the inauguration and beyond. You are also welcome to submit materials that relate to Election 2008 but do not fall within the purview of The Obama Project.
 
To submit texts or images, go to the "Participate" tab on the yellow tool bar in the lower right of the VOICES page. You may also send texts (and photo attachments) directly to voices@polltrack.com. However you submit materials, PLEASE: include your full name and your city and state or location (if outside the US)
 
We very much look forward to hearing your voices on PollTrack.
 

An Open Letter From Roger Smith: Goodbye And Good Riddance

Posted Dec 01, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Roger Smith, New York, New York

An Open Letter From Roger Smith: Goodbye And Good Riddance: Dear Friends: After all my pre-election bombardments, I have spared you any post-election bragging in the form of "analysis."  (Oh, don't worry, something of that sort is in the works.)  But I urge all of my friends of similar views re George W. Bush to spend a few more weeks contemplating just how vast a landscape of wreckage Mr. Bush has left behind before we turn our thoughts to just how a President Obama can somehow clean up the mess.
 
Toward this end, I am indebted to a good friend (a man of normally quite sober demeanor who would, I am sure, prefer to remain anonymous) for alerting me to an article that appeared on the website of The American Prospect, written by one of their regulars, Paul Waldman.  The piece's combination of a fine anger with a solid sense of the facts makes me inclined to read Mr. Waldman's book, Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success--despite its rather turgid title. 
 
Back during Goerge W.'s first administration, I used to get people asking me WHY I had such an unreasoning, almost unbalanced hatred of George W. Bush.  I of course thought it both reasoned and balanced, but I allowed that little Georgie had, in abundance, personal qualities that literally drove me over the edge.  But along about the time of Katrina even my few remaining "righty" friends stopped asking.  (Well, one such friend still asks, but then he finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal the fount of wisdom and Rush Limbaugh a boon companion.)
 
Is the piece below over the top?  I don't think so--I just find it admirably exhaustive in its catalog of the high (and low) crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration.  What frightens me is that the American populace has NOT in fact turned against these policies and beliefs--just their wildly incompetent practice.  Had the Iraq War gone reasonably well (unlikely under the best of management practices, but possible) and had the results of their economic stewardship been less readily and horribly apparent, we could easily have seen a victory by a Republican who, unlike McCain, might have run on a promise to continue these benighted policies.
 
Life--and certainly politics--rarely offers clarity.  However, George Bush has provided it in abundance.  The years 2001-8 will be seen by historians--even ones writing in the very near future--as almost a laboratory test case of what happens when the Federal government of the United States was run by people who could not have done worse had that been their purpose.  And maybe it was.
 
Bush's belief that he will, like Harry Truman, be vindicated by history is just another pathetic fallacy of Mr. Bush.  Indeed, perhaps our pathetic fallacy is attributing human emotions to George W. Bush.  As Kurosawa titled one of his greatest--but least known--movies, "The Bad Sleep Well."
 
Dealing with the aftermath of this massive tidal wave of physical, social and fiscal destruction will take years--maybe decades--just to get us back to where we were in 2000, before the aptly-named Mayberry Machiavellis were let loose. 
 
I for one am not prepared to sweep these events under some enormous rug.  I think a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (like post-Apartheid South Africa's)  is needed to make sure that most Americans will understand the sheer magnitude of the folly brought about by those of us who elected this man--not once, but twice.  Seeing a few of the worst evildoers off to the hoosegow (while emotionally satisfying) will not be enough.  But more realistically, I suspect our team will have to settle for watching these miscreants eagerly accept the blanket pardons that will soon be emanating from the Oval Office.
 
For Paul Waldman's article from The American Prospect click here.  (If you find the piece as delightful as I did, you might want to check out Mr. Waldman's latest posting to the TAP blog  It examines the strange phenomenon of how the conservatives are already feeling themselves a miserably oppressed minority--indeed, they never stopped at the hieght of their power).

Roger Smith's analysis of the state-by-state racial breakdown of the 2008 presidential race is forthcoming on our Writing on the Wall page.

The Race Question: "Obama Effect" Or Lasting Political Realignment

Posted Nov 28, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Derek Fields, Caldwell, New Jersey

I think that in order to really understand the impact of racial voting, we need to see not only the breakdown of the vote but a normalized view based on relative density in the population.  I am not a demographer, but my sense is that the overall non-white population has been growing relative to the white population.  If this is the case and if it is the case the Obama has created a more permanent Democratic affiliation in the non-white population, then this creates some basis for arguing that the Democratic majority is sustainable over a longer term than just one election.  In other words, the more interesting racial question is whether this election was an "Obama-effect" that won't last beyond this election or this candidate or whether it is symptomatic of a general realignment of electoral power from whites to non-whites and whether that realignment favors the Democratic party.

An Obama poll worker writes

Posted Nov 21, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Adrian Monck, New York, New York

This is via an email from my friend's mom. Read it to the end if you will. It's why I like Americans:

   Yesterday, I was a poll worker in M-. There was a record turnout in this little Republican stronghold. BUT, in my district alone, there was an increase of 200 voters, bringing the total to 700. And guess what…657 of them got to the polls yesterday. Amazing how connected us "common" folks were to the beautiful message of hope.

   I don't have the numbers, and I don't think Obama carried our little town, but we were different yesterday. A choice was being made. Not the old straight-line Republican exercise of past decades.

   The turnout was huge here. By 6:00 AM, there were 15 people (two in wheelchairs) lined up to vote. I would estimate that more that 90% of M- voted yesterday. Everything was quiet and orderly. In a town where the Democrats and Independents sometimes don't even bother to show up, everyone came. There actually were a few times that voters had to wait for up to 10 minutes. This is very rare in M-. But, no one complained. It was a very, very serious ritual that was being performed yesterday.

   At one point, the teacher of an after-school day care program came in with a group of little kids. They were observing the important event that was taking place, and they were impressed with the sense of purpose the grown-ups were transmitting. They went back to their school to hold their own election… "which breed makes the best pet, cats or dogs"?

   I loved working for the Board of Elections yesterday. To be at a place where I saw the America I remember. When children came to watch the voting process, to help their parents "pull the lever" for Democracy. To be counted among the millions.

   As soon as the polls closed, I went to M — to be with the Obama campaign people I worked with everyday for the last two months. It was an indescribable release of tension and vindication of our tirelessness and dedication to this extraordinary man. We were truly part of an army. And we won the war unconditionally.

   At 9:01, when the West Coast came online and simultaneously declared Obama the president-elect, we all cried and hugged and screamed and cheered. And we felt as one with the 61 million people that were finally able to express the true spirit of this country.

   The world is watching, and is hopeful about America. And my grandchildren live in a different country today. One of hope and promise and optimism. Just like the post-WW2 America I lived in as a child, but better…more inclusive. I helped make that happen. I'm proud of myself today. And of my fellow-Americans.

http://adrianmonck.com

© Adrian Monck 2008

 

Amsterdam Avenue: November 4, 2008

Posted Nov 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Jeff Mermelstein, New York, New York

 

© Jeff Mermelstein

What I saw as a poll worker

Posted Nov 09, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Daniel Klotz, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

I worked at my polling place for 14 straight hours on Tuesday. I walked half a block to First United Methodist Church, the polling location for Lancaster's 6th Ward, 1st Precinct, at 6:30 a.m. and left at 9:30 p.m.  I had a good time with the other poll workers—Bill from state senator Gib Armstrong's staff, who was there to oppose the Lancaster County Home Rule Charter; Charlie the Democratic Committee's precinct captain; Roy, a gentleman of 67 who was there to support Bob Barr and other Libertarian-minded third-party candidates; and Leslie and Jessica who came from Millersville University to help Spanish-speaking voters.

I was there to support a vote in favor of the Home Rule Charter. I'm pleased to say that my neighbors came through—our precinct voted in favor of the charter by 61% to 39%, and only 83 of 584 voters chose not to vote on the question at all. Every voter was interesting, and I wish I could remember and write about them all.

The most interesting stuff, however, happened after the polls closed, when I took of my propaganda T-shirt and pin, stuck on my official "Poll Watcher" sticker, and walked inside just before the doors were locked, with my certificate from the county authorizing me to be there.

First, a "voting abnormality" story from the afternoon. A true patriot named Sarah, who is about my age and lives just down the block from me on the other side of the street (I'd never met her before), came to vote and found she was no longer in the signature book for this voting location. She had voted there on the last four elections, but somehow she had been purged from the rolls. The election workers at our polling place made a good-faith effort to find out where she was supposed to vote. They successfully helped at least a dozen other people find their correct polling place throughout the day, but not so with Sarah. She wound up going to three other polling places, only to be sent back to our location an hour and a half later. The judge of elections inside our location then instructed her to cast a provisional ballot.

The certificate and sticker that allowed me to stay past closing.

The idea behind a provisional ballot is simple: you complete a regular ballot, then have it sealed inside a green envelope on which is written your contact information and a description of the problem. You and an elections official then sign the envelope. Later, your provisional ballot is reviewed by the Board of Elections. They determine if in fact the mistake was their own (it usually is), and if so, they then include the provisionally-cast ballot in the final, official vote count. They also correct the mistake for the next election. (They don't tell you if they have counted your vote or not, or if they have corrected the mistake or not. You either have to go to all sorts of trouble to find out on your own, or just wait until the next election and try your luck then.)

Here's what happened: Sarah filled out her provisional ballot, then took it, along with the big green envelope, to the nearest election worker inside the polling place. He didn't speak much English, was generally excited and antsy (and an ardent Obama supporter), and had never done the job before. He took the ballot from her and immediately ran it through the ballot scanner. He thanked her and sent her outside. When she walked out the door, we saw her still holding the big green envelope and the legal-sized manila folder in which the ballots are handed out.

We realized something was wrong and tried to figure out what to advise her to do. When we realized that her vote had been counted but her name had not been written on the list of people who voted there, we realized something had to be said, or else there would be trouble reconciling the votes at the end of the night. (We were wrong about that. It wouldn't have caused any problem or discrepancy to be noticed at all. More on that in a second.) Charlie called his folks at the Democratic headquarters. They couldn't find anything in the elections laws or procedures covering the situation. So Charlie went back inside with Sarah and explained the situation to the judge of elections. She didn't know what to do, but took note of the problem and wrote detailed notes to be included in her report to the Board of Elections at the end of the night.

Let's jump back to 8 p.m., when the polls closed. Two of the elections workers had to leave right away, though the judge of elections had been counting on them to stay through the counting and closing, leaving four people to do all the work.

They proceeded with the vote count in the prescribed order:

Only 35 of 565 voters at my polling place chose to vote via eSlate, which leaves no paper trail.

  1. Close the eSlate machine. Throughout the day, 35 people had used the fully-electronic, touch-screen machine, which leaves no paper trail of any sort. Their votes were processed: 14 had voted straight Democratic and 1 had voted straight Republican; Obama registered 29 votes total, McCain 5, and Nader 1.
  2. Remove the paper ballots from the scanner machine, stack them neatly, and put them in a big zippered canvas bag to be returned to the Board of Elections.
  3. Open the absentee ballots that belonged to this precinct and scan them. There were 21 absentee ballots. One of them wouldn't scan, even though it only had a minor tear at the bottom, and even though the scanner will accept a ballot oriented in any direction (and even though they attempted a fix with Scotch tape). The one that wouldn't scan was sent to the Board of Elections, but was never included in the count that the polling place submitted in its election-night return.
  4. Close out the ballot scanning machine. Obama had 431 votes, McCain 105, Nader 4, and Bob Barr 4. Write-ins are counted and entered up to one month later, mostly by hand.

Because I was concerned to make sure that the earlier situation with Sarah's provisional ballot was handled properly, I was keeping close tabs on the total vote count. Here is the raw data I wound up collecting:

  • 565 names had been written in the book of voters who entered the polling place. (When you sign your name in the signature book, an election worker writes your name on a numbered list.)
  • 555 paper ballots had been used that day. 13 of those were "spoiled"—i.e., someone messed up and needed to start over. (The "spoiled" ballots were collected, put in a sealed envelope, and returned to the Board of Elections.) The polling venue had started the day with 1,120 paper ballots. They had 565 left over. (That, at least, added up.)
  • 35 voters had voted via the eSlate.
  • 1 voter (Sarah) had her paper ballot scanned but did not have her name recorded on the list of voters.
  • 21 absentee ballots had been received. 20 of those had been scanned; 1 was unable to be scanned. (None of them had been checked against the list of people who voted, to double-check that no one cast an absentee ballot and then wound up attempting to vote in person.)
  • 548 ballots had been counted by the scanning machine.
  • 17 provisional ballots had been (properly) cast and were waiting in green envelopes to be sent to the Board of Elections.

Here then, is the problem:

565 voters had come through the door and had their names written down on the list of people who voted
+1 voter's ballot was counted but her name did not appear on that list
+21 voters' absentee ballots had submitted
=587 voters.

Compare that to this:

548 ballots were counted by the scanning machine
+1 ballot (absentee) would not scan
+35 ballots were cast electronically (via the eSlate)
=584 ballots counted.

Oops. Our polling place records showed 587 legitimate voters (they appeared in the signature book and thus were allowed to vote at this precinct). Our polling place records showed 584 ballots had been counted.

Oops.

This concerned the judge of elections when I was able to spell it out clearly and simply. She asked to keep the piece of paper on which I had written the (above) simple arithmetic with notes, and she included those in her report. But, she said, "that always happens every time."

There are possible explanations.

  • Someone could have come through the door, signed the signature page, had his or her name written on the list of voters, and then decided it wasn't worth waiting in line any more and left without actually casting a ballot. That's unlikely, though, because they would likely have made that decision after having been handed a paper ballot, and all the paper ballots were accounted for. (No one walked out the door with a ballot, in other words.) With only 35 people using the eSlate, there was never a line for people who weren't using paper ballots.
  • An election worker could have written down someone's name on the list of voters, only to discover that (oops!) that person wasn't in the signature book and needed to cast a provisional ballot instead. (And then didn't do anything about the mistake.) This, too, is unlikely. One of the election workers remaining at the end of the day had been at the "registration" table all day, where they check voters' names against the signature book and write down their names on the list. She had no recollection of any mishap like the one I suggest was possible. Also, for much of the day a poll watcher from the Democratic Committee was there checking names against her own list, serving as a sort of watchdog. Further, the person writing down people's names refers to the signature book for the proper spelling of the name. If it's not there in the signature book, it's unlikely it would be written down on the list.

What happened to those three voters, their three ballots?

I registered my concern and the judge of elections duly noted it, even as she said that such abnormalities are the norm. I had no desire to make a stink, only to do what I considered my duty as a poll watcher.

Instant runoff ballots are surprisingly straightforward.

We live in a democracy, the world's first and longest-standing. If there is one thing we should get all but perfect, it is voting. We obviously don't. The means of voting we use are grossly inconsistent between locales. We use electronic machines that can be tampered with and that leave no paper trail, verifiable or otherwise. (State representative Mike Sturla told me and my fellow poll workers of a reported tampering method: At the beginning of the day, the machines are checked to make sure that they have "zero" votes. McCain having -10 votes and Obama having +10 votes equals zero, and counts as zero. Diebold has claimed that they have corrected the error that allows that to happen, but even if that is true, what have they not caught or accounted for?) Perhaps worst of all, we staff the polling places with honorable and noble citizens who unfortunately are under-trained and unable to stay a full day to ensure consistency. They are responsible for making calculations and following strict (but often obscure) procedures at the end of a tiring 14- or 15-hour shift. We have yet to adopt worthwhile advances in modern-day voting such as instant-runoff voting, which would allow people to vote based on their conscience rather than based on political strategy.

I am troubled by all of this, but at the moment not all that deeply, and I have no plans to take any real action on these problems any time soon. Should I be more troubled? Should we be doing something more?

P.S. Be sure to check out the detailed initial returns from Tuesday for Lancaster County.

http://www.danielklotz.com/

Freedom vs. security

Posted Nov 08, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Mel Rosenthal, New York, New York

Election Day on The Ground

Posted Nov 04, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Carrie Bickner-Zeldman, New York, New York


Voting in my neighborhood of Manhattan is normally a ten minute affair.  Drop in, find the correct district, chat with the poll clerks, close the curtain, weep for a moment, cast my ballot, and dash off to work.

Today was completely different (except for the tears; I always cry when I vote).  Four lines, one for each district at my poll site, wrapped around the block like a snake. You would have thought that people were waiting for a glimpse of Britney Spears.

And the crowd was different.  I used to see people who had time to vote.  Today I saw people who made time to vote.

Voices From The Field: Prospect Heights

Posted Nov 04, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Andras Szanto, Brooklyn, New York

Voices From The Field: Prospect Heights, 4 November 2008, Brooklyn, New York

© Andras Szanto

« Older posts Newer posts »