Election gremlins: Unusual & unsavory
The usual gremlins greeted voters on Election Day. And more than a few unusual and unsavory ones did, too:
• Pennsylvania was the latest state to report an instance of a voter casting an electronic ballot for one presidential candidate but the machine recording another. Mitt Romney was the beneficiary of the Keystone State case, an error corrected with the proverbial “recalibration.” But Barack Obama was the default candidate of choice in several other states in early voting. Those errors also were corrected. But as we've previously editorialized, voting machines should default to no candidate. More than a “recalibration” is in order.
• Common Cause and “its election protection partners” issued a pre-election smear of the Allegheny County Republican Party by alleging, in a letter to the Justice Department, that the GOP's poll-watching voter-fraud-prevention efforts “impermissibly” were based on the racial makeup of the target polling places and, thus, designed to suppress the black vote. There's a stretch.
• But hardly anyone, other than Republicans, that is, saw anything nefarious about Allegheny County Democrat officials using taxpayer-funded county vehicles to ferry those in largely Democrat neighborhoods to the polls. A county judge even defended the program that's been in place for the last decade. Republican neighborhoods are excluded. That's outrageous. Gee, wonder where Common Cause's pre-election letter to the Justice Department was about this bona fide case of voter discrimination?
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.