DOCSLIB.ORG

Gems Election Results

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Election Summary Report 11/09/04 General Election 11/2/04 02:20:35 PM Summary for Jurisdiction Wide, All Races Official Results as Certified on November 9, 2004 Straight Party Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 14235 REPUBLICAN REP 7042 49.47% DEMOCRATIC DEM 7029 49.38% IOWA GREEN IGR 34 0.24% LIBERTARIAN LIB 121 0.85% SOCIALIST WORKERS SOC 9 0.06% President/Vice President Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 44652 GEORGE W. BUSH REP 20819 46.63% JOHN F. KERRY DEM 23296 52.17% MICHAEL ANTHONY PEROUTKA CON 37 0.08% DAVID COBB IGR 37 0.08% MICHAEL BADNARIK LIB 181 0.41% JAMES HARRIS SOC 9 0.02% RALPH NADER NBP 220 0.49% BILL VAN AUKEN NBP 3 0.01% Write-in Votes 50 0.11% United States Senate Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 43586 CHUCK GRASSLEY REP 30065 68.98% ARTHUR SMALL DEM 12261 28.13% DARYL A. NORTHROP IGR 417 0.96% CHRISTY ANN WELTY LIB 735 1.69% EDWIN B. FRUIT SOC 85 0.20% Write-in Votes 23 0.05% United States Rep Dist 4 Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 42871 TOM LATHAM REP 24087 56.18% PAUL W. JOHNSON DEM 18751 43.74% Write-in Votes 33 0.08% State Representative Dist 10 Precincts Reporting 22/22 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 19407/19299 100.56% Total Votes 13559 JIM KURTENBACH REP 7980 58.85% TRACY RUNKEL DEM 5575 41.12% Write-in Votes 4 0.03% State Representative Dist 45 Precincts Reporting 14/14 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 20325/28486 71.35% Total Votes 14005 RANDY R. WOODBURY REP 5366 38.31% BETH WESSEL-KROESCHELL DEM 7864 56.15% JERRY LITZEL NBP 749 5.35% Write-in Votes 26 0.19% State Representative Dist 46 Precincts Reporting 10/10 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 19236/21114 91.11% Total Votes 11681 LISA HEDDENS DEM 10101 86.47% ERIC COOPER LIB 1526 13.06% Write-in Votes 54 0.46% Board of Supervisors Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 31281 WAYNE E. CLINTON DEM 30742 98.28% Write-in Votes 539 1.72% Auditor Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 41242 MARY MOSIMAN REP 24427 59.23% JIM HUTTER DEM 16774 40.67% Write-in Votes 41 0.10% Sheriff Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 42428 TERRY D. STARK REP 19223 45.31% PAUL H. FITZGERALD DEM 23132 54.52% Write-in Votes 73 0.17% Collins Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 178/223 79.82% Total Votes 159 STEVEN C. SHIPTON REP 157 98.74% Write-in Votes 2 1.26% Franklin Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 1265/1703 74.28% Total Votes 919 ROBERT WIRTH DEM 905 98.48% Write-in Votes 14 1.52% Grant Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 259/352 73.58% Total Votes 23 Write-in Votes 23 100.00% Howard Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 275/381 72.18% Total Votes 184 PAUL N. RISDAL NBP 182 98.91% Write-in Votes 2 1.09% Howard Twp Trustee To Fill A Vacancy Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 280/381 73.49% Total Votes 202 KEVIN BALDUS DEM 200 99.01% Write-in Votes 2 0.99% Indian Creek Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 332/475 69.89% Total Votes 291 ROBERT D. MAXWELL REP 289 99.31% Write-in Votes 2 0.69% Lafayette Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 268/337 79.53% Total Votes 219 GARY L. UTHE REP 215 98.17% Write-in Votes 4 1.83% Lincoln Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 135/163 82.82% Total Votes 121 PHILIP McBRIDE REP 119 98.35% Write-in Votes 2 1.65% Milford Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 310/409 75.79% Total Votes 216 ROBERT W. JACOBSON DEM 211 97.69% Write-in Votes 5 2.31% Nevada Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 429/539 79.59% Total Votes 288 RICHARD COLLINS DEM 283 98.26% Write-in Votes 5 1.74% New Albany Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 177/260 68.08% Total Votes 5 Write-in Votes 5 100.00% New Albany Twp Trustee To Fill A Vacancy Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 194/260 74.62% Total Votes 155 ALLAN R. ARMBRECHT REP 155 100.00% Write-in Votes 0 0.00% Palestine Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 3/3 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 397/609 65.19% Total Votes 31 Write-in Votes 31 100.00% Richland Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 219/282 77.66% Total Votes 190 WILLARD GERLACH DEM 189 99.47% Write-in Votes 1 0.53% Sherman Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 138/175 78.86% Total Votes 125 DEAN R. HARTWIG REP 122 97.60% Write-in Votes 3 2.40% Union Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 246/328 75.00% Total Votes 7 Write-in Votes 7 100.00% Warren Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 166/180 92.22% Total Votes 122 DAVID GRANZOW NBP 121 99.18% Write-in Votes 1 0.82% Warren Twp Clerk To Fill A Vacancy Precincts Reporting 2/2 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 164/180 91.11% Total Votes 107 GANNON MICHAEL HENDR NBP 97 90.65% Write-in Votes 10 9.35% Washington Twp Trustee Precincts Reporting 3/3 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 397/556 71.40% Total Votes 280 DAROLD PRIMMER DEM 275 98.21% Write-in Votes 5 1.79% Hospital Trustee Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 65093 GLENDA S. BRADSHAW 23856 36.65% GAYLAN G. SCOFIELD 20376 31.30% MICHAEL JAMES NUSBAU 20599 31.65% Write-in Votes 262 0.40% Soil/Water Conserv District Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 61114 ORSON D. NADY 13887 22.72% DAVID VAN WAUS 15022 24.58% JERRY K. RADKE 16849 27.57% ERWIN KLAAS 15101 24.71% Write-in Votes 255 0.42% Ag Ext Council Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 78887 DENISE CARLSON 17446 22.12% JEAN E. SAVERAID 15081 19.12% CATHY MILLER 16165 20.49% PAUL TEIG 16040 20.33% KAREN McKILLIGAN 13914 17.64% Write-in Votes 241 0.31% David S. Wiggins Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28401 YES 22330 78.62% NO 6071 21.38% Jerry L. Larson Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28303 YES 22355 78.98% NO 5948 21.02% Louis A. Lavorato Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28214 YES 21338 75.63% NO 6876 24.37% Robert E. Mahan Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 27928 YES 22171 79.39% NO 5757 20.61% Gayle Vogel Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 27882 YES 22366 80.22% NO 5516 19.78% David R. Danilson Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28080 YES 22803 81.21% NO 5277 18.79% Thomas R. Hronek Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28514 YES 22390 78.52% NO 6124 21.48% Steven Van Marel Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28261 YES 22575 79.88% NO 5686 20.12% Victor G. Lathrop Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 28708 YES 23353 81.35% NO 5355 18.65% James A. McGlynn Precincts Reporting 44/44 100.00% Ballots Cast/Reg. Voters 44748/68899 64.95% Total Votes 27625 YES 22278 80.64% NO 5347 19.36% .
Recommended publications
  • Poll Results

    Poll Results

    March 13, 2006 October 24 , 2008 National Public Radio The Final Weeks of the Campaign October 23, 2008 1,000 Likely Voters Presidential Battleground States in the presidential battleground: blue and red states Total State List BLUE STATES RED STATES Colorado Minnesota Colorado Florida Wisconsin Florida Indiana Michigan Iowa Iowa New Hampshire Missouri Michigan Pennsylvania Nevada Missouri New Mexico Minnesota Ohio Nevada Virginia New Hampshire Indiana New Mexico North Carolina North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Virginia Wisconsin National Public Radio, October 2008 Battleground Landscape National Public Radio, October 2008 ‘Wrong track’ in presidential battleground high Generally speaking, do you think things in the country are going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the Right direction Wrong track wrong track? 82 80 75 17 13 14 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Net -58 -69 -66 Difference *Note: The September 20, 2008, survey did not include Indiana, though it was included for both the August and October waves.Page 4 Data | Greenberg from National Quinlan Public Rosner National Public Radio, October 2008 Radio Presidential Battleground surveys over the past three months. Two thirds of voters in battleground disapprove of George Bush Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as president? Approve Disapprove 64 66 61 35 32 30 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Net -26 -32 -36 Difference *Note: The September 20, 2008, survey did not include Indiana, though it was included for both the August and October waves.Page 5 Data | Greenberg from National Quinlan Public Rosner National Public Radio, October 2008 Radio Presidential Battleground surveys over the past three months.
  • June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA

    June 2004 GPCA Plenary June 5-6, 2004 Sacramento City College, Sacramento, CA Saturday Morning - 6/5/04 Delegate Orientation Ellen Maisen: Review of consensus-seeking process Reminder of why we seek consensus vs. simply voting: Voting creates factions, while consensus builds community spirit. Facilitators: Magali Offerman, Jim Shannon Notes: Adrienne Prince and Don Eichelberger (alt.) Vibes: Leslie Dinkin, Don Eichelberger Time Keeper: Ed Duliba Confirming of Agenda Ratification of minutes, discussion of electoral reform, and platform plank have all been moved to Sunday. Time-sensitive agenda items were given priority. Consent Calendar Jo Chamberlain, SMC: Media bylaws concerns will also be discussed Sunday a.m. Clarification on “point of process” for Consent Calendar: when concerns are brought up, the item in question becomes dropped from the calendar and can be brought up for discussion and voting later in the plenary as time allows. I. GPUS Post-First-Round Ballot Voting Instructions Proposal - Nanette Pratini, Jonathan Lundell, Jim Stauffer Regarding convention delegate voting procedure: “If a delegate’s assigned candidate withdraws from the race or if subsequent votes are required…delegates will vote using their best judgment…as to what the voters who selected their assigned candidate would choose.” Floor rules in process of being approved by national CC. Will be conducted as a series of rounds, announced state by state. For first round, delegates are tied to the candidates as represented in the primary. If someone wins and does not want to accept the vote, subsequent rounds will vote. If a willing candidate gets a majority, they will be nominated, If “no candidate” (an option) wins, there will be an IRV election for an endorsement instead of a nomination.
  • 2000 11-07 General Election

    2000 11-07 General Election

    2000 General Election, Salt Lake County, Utah These results are for Salt Lake County only Summary Information Precincts Counted 688 Number of registered voters 444186 Total ballots cast 312098 70.26% Straight Party Ballots Cast Democrat 46553 46.04% Republican 50225 49.67% Independent American 3509 3.47% Libertarian 504 0.50% Natural Law 183 0.18% Reform 149 0.15% 101123 100% President and Vice President Democrat - Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman 107576 35.01% Republican - George W. Bush and Dick Cheney 171585 55.84% Green - Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke 21252 6.92% Independent American - Howard Phillips and Curtis Frazier 896 0.29% Libertarian - Harry Browne and Art Olivier 1699 0.55% Natural Law - John Hagelin and Nat Goldhaber 388 0.13% Reform - Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster 3676 1.20% Socialist - James Harris and Margaret Trowe 101 0.03% Unaffiliated - Louie G. Youngkeit and Robert Leo Beck 85 0.03% Write In - Earnest Lee Easton 0 0.00% Write In - Keith Lewis Kunzler 0 0.00% Write In - Forrest C. Labelle 0 0.00% Write In - Daniel J. Pearlman 0 0.00% Write In - Joe Schriner 0 0.00% Write In - Gloria Dawn Strickland 0 0.00% United States Senate Democrat - Scott Howell 130329 42.43% Republican - Orrin G. Hatch 168029 54.70% Independent American - Carlton Edward Bowen 4222 1.37% Libertarian - Jim Dexter 4597 1.50% United States House of Representatives U.S. Representative District 1 Precincts Counted 2 Registered Voters 688 Ballots Cast 319 46.37% Democrat - Kathleen McConkie Collinwood 151 49.51% Republican - James V.
  • Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein's 2012 Green Party Campaign

    45 Recognizing the Rhetorics of Feminist Action: Activist Literacy and Dr. Jill Stein’s 2012 Green Party Campaign Virginia Crisco Abstract: Scholars such as Nancy Welch and Susan Jarratt argue that Neoliberalism shapes how everyday citizens are able to take action. Using what Jacquelyn Jones Royster and Gesa Kirsch call “social circulation,” I analyze how Dr. Jill Stein, the presidential candidate for the Green Party in 2012, used “whatever spaces are left” to challenge the dominant two party system, particularly in relation to the pres- idential debates. I argue that Stein demonstrates an activist literacy disposition that positions her to use the spaces, the literate and rhetorical means, and oppor- tunities for storytelling to foster social action in our neoliberal climate. Keywords: neoliberalism, social circulation, activist literacy, third party politics In Living Room: Teaching Public Writing in a Privatized World, Nancy Welch argues that neoliberalism has changed not only the topics available for public discussion in the pursuit of making socio-political change, but the venues for having those discussions, as they have also become increasingly privatized. As an example, Welch refects on her experiences advocating for her husband’s health care to their insurance company. She describes the multiple letters she had gotten from her insurance company saying their appeal for his care had been denied, using the same phrases again and again, as if her carefully re- searched and rhetorical letters were not even being read. This leads Welch to question the amount of power we as teachers and scholars of writing give to language and rhetoric: These are rhetorical strategies that, mostly in the abstract, have given me comfort – comfort in the belief that I really can wield power in language, that I can empower my students, particularly those subor- dinate by gender, race, sexuality, and class, to do the same.
  • Taker GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA June 2017 General

    Taker GREEN PARTY of CALIFORNIA June 2017 General

    Mimi Newton, Sacramento GA Note- Taker GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA June 2017 General Assembly Minutes Sacramento, June 17-18, 2017 ATTENDEES: Name County Sacramento Delegate status Present/Absent Brett Dixon Alameda Delegate P Greg Jan Alameda Delegate P James McFadden Alameda Not delegate P Jan Arnold Alameda Delegate P Laura Wells Alameda Delegate P Maxine Daniel Alameda Delegate P Michael Rubin Alameda Delegate P Pam Spevack Alameda Delegate P Paul Rea Alameda Delegate P Phoebe Sorgen Alameda Delegate P Erik Rydberg Butte Delegate P Bert Heuer Contra Costa Not delegate P Brian Deckman Contra Costa Not delegate P Meleiza Figueroa Contra Costa Not delegate P Tim Laidman Contra Costa Delegate P Megan Buckingham Fresno Delegate P David Cobb Humboldt Delegate/Alt P Jim Smith Humboldt Delegate P Kelsey Reedy Humboldt Not delegate P Kyle Dust Humboldt Delegate P Matt Smith-Caggiano Humboldt Delegate/Alt P Cassidy Sheppard Kern Delegate P Penny Sheppard Kern Delegate P Ajay Rai Los Angeles Delegate P Andrea Houtman Los Angeles Not delegate P Angel Orellana Los Angeles Delegate P Angelina Saucedo Los Angeles Delegate P Cesar Gonzalez Los Angeles Not delegate P Christopher Cruz Los Angeles Delegate P Daniel Mata Los Angeles Delegate P Doug Barnett Los Angeles Delegate P Fernando Ramirez Los Angeles Delegate P James Lauderdale Los Angeles Not delegate P Jimmy Rivera Los Angeles Delegate P Kenneth Mejia Los Angeles Delegate P Lisa Salvary Los Angeles Delegate P Liz Solis Los Angeles Delegate P Marla Bernstein Los Angeles Delegate P Martin Conway
  • 2010 Green Party Platform

    2010 Green Party Platform

    Platform 2010 Green Party of the United States As Adopted by the Green National Committee September 2010 About the Green Party The Green Party of the United States is a federation of state Green Parties. Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing, Greens are renewing democracy without the support of corporate donors. Greens provide real solutions for real problems. Whether the issue is universal health care, corporate globalization, alternative energy, election reform or decent, living wages for workers, Greens have the courage and independence necessary to take on the powerful corporate interests. The Federal Elec - tions Commission recognizes the Green Party of the United States as the official Green Party National Com - mittee. We are partners with the European Federation of Green Parties and the Federation of Green Parties of the Americas. The Green Party of the United States was formed in 2001 from of the older Association of State Green Parties (1996-2001). Our initial goal was to help existing state parties grow and to promote the formation of parties in all 51 states and colonies. Helping state parties is still our primary goal. As the Green Party National Com - mittee we will devote our attention to establishing a national Green presence in politics and policy debate while continuing to facilitate party growth and action at the state and local level. Green Party growth has been rapid since our founding and Green candidates are winning elections through - out the United States. State party membership has more than doubled. At the 2000 Presidential Nominating Convention we nominated Ralph Nader and Winona LaDuke for our Presidential ticket.
  • RESOLVED, Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary Distribute

    RESOLVED, Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary Distribute

    8 RESOLVED, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary distribute PRO: Caroline J. Tolbert or CON: David P. Redlawsk From the beginning, the Constitution offered a clear answer to the question of who should elect the president: the electoral college. Or did it? Virginia delegate George Mason was not alone in thinking that after George Washington had passed from the scene,post, the electoral college would seldom produce a winner. In such a far-flung and diverse country, Mason reasoned, the electoral vote would almost invariably be fractured, leaving no candidate with the required 50 percent plus one of electoral votes. Mason estimated that “nineteen times in twenty” the president would be chosen by the House of Representatives, which the Constitution charged with making the selection from among the top five (the Twelfth Amendment, enacted in 1804, changed it tocopy, the top three) electoral vote getters in the event that no candidate had the requisite electoral vote majority. In essence, Mason thought, the electoral college would narrow the field of candidates and the House would select the president. notMason was wrong: in the fifty-seven presidential elections since 1788, the electoral college has chosen the president fifty-five times. Not since 1824, in the contest between John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford, has the House chosen the president. And contrary to Do Mason’s prediction, the nomination of candidates has been performed not by the electoral college but by political parties. Copyright © 2014 by CQ Press, a division of SAGE. No part of these pages may be quoted, reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher Political Parties Should Nominate Candidates for President in a National Primary 137 The framers of the Constitution dreaded the prospect of parties.
  • The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004

    The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004

    The Case for Fraud in Ohio Election 2004 I. Voter Suppression A. Overly Restrictive Registration Requirements B. Incompetence in Processing Registrations C. Challenges to New Registrants on Insufficient Grounds D. Misinformation About Voting Status/Location/Date E. Voter Intimidation F. Voting Machine Shortages/Malfunctions G. Overly Restrictive Rules & Incorrect Procedure Regarding Provisional Ballots H. Poorly Designed Absentee Ballots Caused Voters to Mark Incorrect Candidate II. Access to Voting Systems Before Election Violates Protocol III. A Third-Rate Burglary in Toledo IV. Suspect Results A. Registration Irregularities B. Exceptionally High Voter Turnout C. More Votes than Voters D. Exceptionally High Rates of Undervotes E. High Rate of Overvotes Due to Ballots Pre-Punched for Bush? F. The Kerry/Connally Discrepancy G. Discrepancy between Exit Polls & Tabulated Votes V. Restricting Citizen Observation & Access to Public Documents A. Warren County Lockdown B. Restricting Citizen Access to Election Records VI. What Went Wrong with the Recounts/Investigation of Vote Irregularities A. Chain of Custody of Voting Machines & Materials Violated B. Failure to Follow Established Procedures for Recounts C. Failure to Allow Recount Observers to Fully Examine Materials D. Secretary of State Blackwell has Failed to Answer Questions VII. Recount Reveals Significant Problems VIII. Methods of Election Fraud A. Stuffing the Ballot Box B. Touchscreen voting machines appear to have been set to “Bush” as Default C. Computers pre-programmed to ‘adjust’ vote count in Bush’s favor? D. Tampering with the Tabulators: Evidence of Hacking in Real-Time? IX. Additional Observations A. Irregular/Impossible Changes in Exit Polls over time on Election Night I.
  • Hit and Run: the Rise and Fall of Ralph Nader

    Hit and Run: the Rise and Fall of Ralph Nader

    DePaul Law Review Volume 24 Issue 4 Summer 1975 Article 21 Hit and Run: The Rise and Fall of Ralph Nader Patricia Flynn Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Patricia Flynn, Hit and Run: The Rise and Fall of Ralph Nader, 24 DePaul L. Rev. 1082 (1975) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol24/iss4/21 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1082 DE PAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 24:1079 credit user. The major reasons given for default were loss of income due either to misfortunes in the job market or illness. Debtors who bought from direct sellers and used automobile dealers reported deceit in the original transaction much more frequently than did other debtors. When the various debtor and creditor characteristics are correlated to each issue, some unexpected findings occur. Race and income are only slightly related to whether a person reported actual receipt of a summons, while general quality of the neighborhood in which he lived and type of dwelling unit were more highly related to service. It was also found that the three most frequent creditor plaintiffs in New York, a bank, a direct seller, and a finance company, all had much lower rates of reported actual service than other similar creditors. The lowest rate went to the finance company, only 32% of whose customers reported actual receipt.
  • A Canadian Primer to the 2012 Us Primaries and Caucuses

    A Canadian Primer to the 2012 Us Primaries and Caucuses

    A CANADIAN PRIMER TO THE 2012 US PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES A Policy Update Paper By Colin Robertson CDFAI Senior Research Fellow January, 2012 Prepared for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute 1600, 530 – 8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T2P 3S8 www.cdfai.org © Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute A CANADIAN PRIMER TO THE 2012 U.S. PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 Who’s running for the Republicans and what are their platforms? .................................. 3 Where do they stand? ........................................................................................................... 3 What’s the difference between a primary and a caucus? .................................................. 3 Is the process starting earlier than usual? ......................................................................... 3 Are the Iowa caucuses (January 3) important? .................................................................. 4 What about the Iowa Straw Poll held last August? ............................................................ 4 And the New Hampshire primary (January 10)? ................................................................. 4 Do the parties do their primary process differently? ......................................................... 5 Haven’t there been a lot more candidate debates? ............................................................ 5 Do the debates matter? ........................................................................................................
  • General Election Write-In Results

    General Election Write-In Results

    2012 General Election - November 6, 2012 1 of 3 President - Personal Choice (Write-ins) Full Term - Vote for One Municipality Ward Dist Votes Total votes Chris Christie Avalon 1 1 4 Lower Township 1 9 1 Middle Township 8 1 Upper Township 2 1 Charlie Sheen Avalon 1 1 1 Ron Paul Avalon 2 1 101 Cape May 5 1 Dennis Township 4 2 Dennis Township 5 2 Dennis Township 6 3 Dennis Township 8 2 & Judge Andrew Napolitano (VP) Dennis Township mail-in 1 Dennis Township mail-in 1 & Donald Trump (VP) Dennis Township mail-in 1 Lower Township 1 2 1 Lower Township 1 6 1 Lower Township 1 9 2 Lower Township 2 1 1 Lower Township 2 3 3 Lower Township 2 5 1 Lower Township 2 8 1 Lower Township 2 10 1 Lower Township 3 1 2 Lower Township 3 2 1 Lower Township 3 3 1 Lower Township 3 5 1 Lower Township 3 6 1 Lower Township 3 9 1 Lower Township 3 mail-in 1 Middle Township 1 1 Middle Township 2 1 Middle Township 4 1 Middle Township 13 1 Middle Township 14 1 Middle Township 17 1 (1 Paul Ryan write-in as VP doesn't count) Middle Township mail-in 4 North Wildwood 1 1 1 North Wildwood 2 4 3 North Wildwood 2 mail-in 1 North Wildwood 2 provisional 1 Ocean City 1 1 2 Ocean City 1 3 1 Ocean City 1 4 1 Ocean City 1 5 1 Ocean City 2 3 1 Ocean City 2 mail-in 2 Ocean City 3 3 1 Ocean City 3 4 1 2012 General Election - November 6, 2012 2 of 3 President - Personal Choice (Write-ins) Full Term - Vote for One Municipality Ward Dist Votes Total votes Ron Paul (continued) Ocean City 3 mail-in 1 Upper Township 3 3 Upper Township 4 1 Upper Township 5 1 Upper Township 6 3 Upper Township 8
  • Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines

    Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines

    CALTECH/MIT VOTING TECHNOLOGY PROJECT A multi-disciplinary, collaborative project of the California Institute of Technology – Pasadena, California 91125 and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 AUDITING TECHNOLOGY FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES Sharon B. Cohen MIT Key words: DRE, voting machine security, electronic voting, electronic voting machines, auditing technology VTP WORKING PAPER #46 May 2005 Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines by Sharon B. Cohen Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Engineering and Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology May 19, 2005 Copyright 2005 Sharon B. Cohen. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis and to grant others the right to do so. Author_________________________________________________________________ Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science May 19, 2005 Certified by___________________________________________________________ Ted Selker Thesis Supervisor Accepted by____________________________________________________________ Arthur C. Smith Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Theses Auditing Technology for Electronic Voting Machines by Sharon B. Cohen Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering