Very interested in the election process - especially helping voters understand.
Professionals in one discipline are well-meaning amateurs in another, just like Monday-morning quarterbacks. SJM, how long would you continue to be seriously receptive to continual amateur suggestions regarding your profession?
The blog under discussion was not accurate or helpful to voters. Are sensational seeking reports more important than responsibility to the public? Inflammatory suggestive words often become "facts" as they are passed along. To me those who post such words are not trying to be helpful or trying to do the right thing.
Dr. W did not "discover" the PVL reports were no longer on line, but rather was informed of that fact via receiving the reports by email. There was nothing sinister, tricky or otherwise regarding the removal of that file from the internet. It was a response to voter concerns. (Gleefully trigger-happy, Cracker?) Old-time telephone books allowed unlisted numbers; on-line posts are visible to all. There are many reasons a voter might not want their private info posted on line, one group that comes to mind would be several levels of law professionals.
The referenced 2012 "anomalies" were not anomalies, but rather outright redistricting errors committed by the then in-house I.T. Dr. W first told me that he used SCEC on-line data to "discover" those anomalies. When I pointed out that those files were not posted for the time period he referenced, he then said he used the state Democrat data file. At the time, that file was discovered to be woefully out-of-date. It is a mystery to me how the bird-doggers could have made their discovery from files that, which in internet time, were ancient.
SJM, no elections were overturned, some were contested, settled and/or dismissed -- not overturned! You are in no position to be aware of any reforms I have supported. You seem to be oblivious that while you were a sitting member, the CC refused funds for needed additional personnel and instead imposed a $200K study before needed equipment could be purchased -- then you claimed approval of a non-request!
Shame on you! Printing (reporting??) the twisted-misinformation of others does not relieve you of the responsibility to verify before you print, even on a blog. When you don't understand the subject, please refrain from sharing. What you blogged is not factual, accurate or helpful, your readers deserve facts on public interest topics. Repartee inducing posts of this nature are destructive and misleading, perhaps entertaining to some, but as a reporter don't you have some kind of ethics code regarding truth and facts, even on a blog? Would you blog or report in a serious manner about a miraculous inexpensive protection from hurricanes right before hurricane season in FL? Should "WARNING -Entertainment Only" disclaimer be added to your writings?
Jackson, you confirmed the answer to my question regarding the level of verification you do before publishing stories! This is a disgraceful hodgepodge, you should be ashamed of yourself, EVEN under a "blog" title. Talk about malfeasance!!! All four of you should be ashamed, Dr. W had time to correct his misinformation before you posted this, but I see that he has not even done so at this time. He acknowledged his mistaken idea that he had not received the list, he even made a remark about " not knowing what happened".
Is there a reason your did not speculate about Heidi Shafer as Chair of the Commission?
Is there a reason you did not speculate about Heidi Shafer as Chair of the CO. Commission?
SJM, you are dead wrong, there was no formal request by staff or anyone at SCEC for funds for optical scan machines! The County Commission DID turn down a formal request for funds to hire additional SCEC personnel and you DID turn down a formal request for funds to replace the registration system. In lieu of making the needed funds available, a $200,000 STUDY was mandated by the county to determine the need for a new registration system! County ITS and other informed/knowledgeable professionals have made that recommendation based on need, sound research and experience! Your commission approved a $200K STUDY before ANYTHING can be purchased; now you are portraying that money is lying around Nashville for the asking. Even aside from compatibility issue of existing equipment to new equipment, you and Mr. Weinberg have sadly misinformed bees-in-your-bonnet regarding optical scan machines and SCEC.
FYI - Albert Holmes is the Operations Manager of SCEC.
All Comments »
By Chris Shaw
download this issue
click here to see more »