UPDATE 5/3/2016: JUST RECEIVED A TEXT THAT IN REALITY I WAS NOT ON THE FINAL SLATE, YET I VERIFIED WITH ANOTHER TRUMP ARIZONA TEAM MEMBER THAT I WAS. FOR THE RECORD, CONSIDER ME NOT ON THE TRUMP FINAL SLATE. HAS THE FINAL SLATE EVER BEEN MADE PUBLIC?
VOTE AGAIN – HERE IS WHY!
I have received a note from a senior member of the Arizona Cruz Team. This is a person I have known for a number of years and I have no reason at all to doubt his veracity. Thus I am sharing his three point message. The message read:
1) The Trump campaign was responsible for setting their electronic slate and double checking to be sure it was accurate. They dropped the ball. Everyone else got their slate done right.
2) The voters are ultimately responsible. If you press the slate button that is a convenience for you, but if you really care about someone being a delegate it is super easy to look at their name and ensure that their box was checked. If it wasn’t, you check it. Then you get a second chance to get it right because after you’ve made your choices you get the second screen you have on your comment asking if you are sure that these are your choices. And again, the voters are responsible.
3) Adding ten more names to your ballot wouldn’t have made any real difference. Those names that were on the slate correctly got the full support of Team Trump and all the Trump voters in the room. And they all still lost, except for Arpaio (who got crossover support) and Michele Reagan (who ended up on all four slates). Nothing you are complaining about would give the bulk of the Trump slate any more votes or any more delegates/alternates.
No doubt that he is correct on point number one. The Trump camp failure to issue a paper slate to the Trump supporting state delegates for the “At Large” voting is an example of sloppiness, not reaching the point of malfeasance or mismanagement. This paper slate would have let the voters double check who was on the slate or allow the voter to vote the slate individually. Why wasn’t this done?
Jeff Dewit, do you care to explain to the loyal Trump supporters why no paper slate was distributed?
The point in number two is related to number one, in that if the voter does not know who is on the slate, then you can check nothing. I disagree that the voters are responsible to insure that online computer based black box voting is functioning properly, especially without knowing who the slate candidates are. This is on the Arizona GOP for validation and on the Trump team for no paper slate and for corroborating the programming and the data input. Did this happen? Apparently not!
Point number three I disagree with, in that, if the slate was set up properly on the computer online system then my receipt would have had 56 names (delegates and alternates) and not 46, ignoring for the moment whether the names were correct.
As a voter on a smart phone, at the end of a long day, with my phone battery dying, and no charging stations made available by the convention team – it becomes highly incumbent on the folks who put the voting together, including slate management, 1) to have the input of slates and candidates for each camp to a computer based system and 2) the programing of the system professionally checked and signed off for the Trump team. Again, did this happen? We can only assume that this was not done based on the outcome. There was an old Republican who used to state: “Trust but verify”.
Yes the AZ GOP made 7 or 8 electronic voting machines available in a room for those without smart phones in a convention of 1,200+ people. Needless to say the lines were large and the same problems found on the smart phone would also exist, save the dying battery.
Let’s put another spike into the heart of the Arizona GOP. Many of the names of winners in the morning vote for the congressional district delegates, were not removed from the “At Large” ballot. Thus allowing a morning winner to garner votes that should have gone to true “At Large” candidates.
While he makes some good points, nothing of what this Arizona Cruz Team senior member says changes the fact that the numbers did not foot – yes that accounting term again. Auditors love the term, because it means that everything makes sense and is accurate. If it does not foot, then you have a problem.
Repeating the number analysis from, Trump Arizona Delegates Stolen, on this convention’s vote, I offer:
The top vote getter was Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General – not necessarily a Trump supporter, at 766. He supposedly was on all 4 slates – why? Each of his slates received 430 (Trump slate), 409 (Cruz slate), 57 (Kasich slate), 29 (Unity – the AZ GOP slate) votes totaling 925. According to the computer people, SimplyVoting, 187 delegates did not vote slates, but voted individual delegate candidates. If each slate vote was counted for each candidate then why did he receive 766. Should not his position on supposedly 4 slates getting a total of 925 votes mean that he gets all the votes to each slate, 925.
This is not a charge against the Cruz team for unethical behavior – I have absolutely no idea of their capability or involvement, but this is a charge against the seriously unprofessional and almost tainted approach of the Arizona GOP and the Trump team.
If you have an electronic vote and the numbers do not add up, foot, or simply make sense, then you do not have a vote. Until or when the numbers are explained or the vote is trashed and a new vote is taken, this will not be resolved.
Since the vote was totally online, then a new vote could be accomplished by offering the delegates a new password and proceed with the re-vote without traveling to a convention site.
Thoughts – comments?