Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer. What makes this article so unique is that it is about felonious admission of guilt on an issue that affects all of us to our core. If it can be proven that the perpetrator is guilty, I have no idea how he could escape doing time in a federal prison.
It appears from early unofficial vote totals that Stan White narrowly defeated Bill Cook to retain the Senate 1 seat and Paul Tine narrowly defeated Mattie Lawson to win the House 6 seat that Cook has held for the last two years. Michael Speciale easily won House 3, which includes much of Beaufort County south of the river.
You can review Beaufort County's results by
clicking here to download Beaufort's results.
A quick glance at the results shows that both Mitt Romney and Walter Jones easily won in Beaufort, Romney with 13,918 to Obama's 9399 and Jones 13,650 to Eric Anderson's 6,352. In the U. S. House district 1 G. K. Butterfield walked off with a 2281 to 746 win in Beaufort County.
We'll have more later on other local races, including the surprising county commission results.
For us, the most surprising and disappointing results were those in Senate 1 and House 6. But a closer look reveals why: The Zombies made the margin of victory for two Yellow Dog Democrats. Here's how the numbers reveal that.
First, White won the Senate seat by only 388 out of 85,498 or less than a half percent. Tine won House 6 ty 453 votes out of 40,675 or about 1%.
But the significant thing in both races was not so much that they were extremely close, but where the margin of victory came from. In the Senate race it was Pasquotank County where White polled 4,234 more than did Cook. Take Pasquotank out of the mix and you have Cook winning by roughly 4,000 votes. You can't look at these results and not realize that redistricting makes all the difference in the world. But its more than that.
Presumed winner, before any re-count, NC Senator Stan White, Democrat: Above. photo by Stan Deatherage
In House 6 the margin of victory for Tine came not from either his home county or the two largest counties, which Lawson carried easily but from Washington County where Tine won by 2,163. So the logical question becomes: What is different about Pasquotank and Washington counties?
Now what follows is not politically correct, we know. But it is an irrefutable fact. Both White and Tine won as a result of race.
The most distinguishing characteristic of both Pasquotank and Washington counties is that they are predominately black--much more so than any of the other counties with anywhere near comparable votes.
But, one might say: "all four candidates are white, so how could race be a factor?" Good question. Here's the answer: Blacks tend to vote Democrat. Probably in excess of 95%. They will not, as a voting block, even consider giving a Republican candidate a chance.
Put in a position of voting for a freshman minority party member who will have little or no influence and therefore effectiveness in the seniority/partisan controlled Legislature they chose to vote overwhelmingly for ineffectiveness over having a representative who could more effectively represent the district's interest.
Here are the numbers to support that argument. In Senate 1 23,689 voters cast a straight Democrat ballot. That compares to 18,300 who cast a straight Republican ballot. Thus, at first glance you might say there's not a tremendous difference. But then, look at Pasquotank. There, in a predominately black county, 7,752 people cast straight Democrat ballots while only 3,166 voted a straight Republican ballot.
You had the same phenomenon in Hyde, but with just fewer votes on both sides. In Gates, White got 74% of his vote from straight Democrat ballots. It gets a bit complex if you begin to compare these results to others that might indicate the validity of the conclusion, but suffice it to say here that comparable races do not dispel the conclusion that "blacks tend to vote Democrat most of the time and they do so by casting straight party ballots more often than not."
The same conclusion is supported by the numbers in the House 3 race as well but to a significantly lesser degree in the part of Craven County in that district.
Click here download the numbers.
The inescapable conclusion here can be simply stated: Had there not been straight party voting both Cook and Lawson would have undoubtedly won. Therefore, White and Tine won as a result of Democrat straight party voting.
Presumed winner, before any re-count, Democrat Paul Tine: Above. photo by Stan Deatherage
Commentary
Racially polarized voting can be deciphered by statistics. What the pure statistics do not reveal is how it is done. Poll observers in Tuesday's election saw the phenomenon by visual observation.
A large number (more than enough to have changed the outcome of the Senate 1 and House 6 races in Beaufort County alone) of voters were observed obviously voting straight party ballots. How does one know that, without seeing the ballot? Simply by observing how long it took each voter to complete the ballot. Typical straight party voters bubble in their votes in a matter of seconds, while those who are voting for each office take much longer, sometimes 5 to 10 times as long.
Some of the poll observers were former teachers. Teachers who have had several years experience become quite proficient in identifying students who are not going to do well on "bubble sheet" tests by simply watching them take the test. The same is true watching people bubble in a ballot. And experienced test monitors can tell which students know, or think they know, the answers. They have what is called in the trade good "attack skills." They look at the paper, read the instructions then begin to bubble in their responses. Typically they proceed from top to bottom. They read the item and the responses then color in a bubble. They then move down to the next one. This usually continues until they reach the last item. Many good test takers then go back and review their responses.
In contrast, a student who does not know the answers usually does an item or two and then begins to look around. Many will be seen staring off into space with a blank look. Definitely not aggressive attackers.
Poll watchers Tuesday observed this phenomenon over and over again. Typically these were the "voters" who sought what the Elections People called "assistance." The rules even permit someone to show a person who requests it, how to vote.
It was also interesting to watch how the assigned poll workers explained "straight party" voting. There was a little red card given to each voter with their ballot. The card simply told them that if they voted a straight party ticket that they would not be casting a vote for president or non-partisan races (and even some partisan races, such as county commissioner). The ballot itself contained instructions on straight party voting.
Many who wanted to vote straight party got very detailed instructions from the poll worker. Some went so far as to show them the bubbles to mark to vote straight party and still vote for president. Almost always they were black voters.
Not only did the poll workers tutor these straight party voters but the voters often brought someone with them. Or rather it appeared that the real voter was bringing someone who did not know what they were doing and actually the real voter was the one making the selections, not the person to whom the ballot was issued.
Another phenomenon often observed was that these straight party voters came in batches of people and could often be seen riding together. Often the voters appeared to be handicapped (had to be told how to follow the posted instructions and some were clearly mentally handicapped).
Here's the point. If the sample of precincts that were monitored are representative, then these "straight party voters who need assistance" clearly exceeded the margin of victory in both Senate 1 and House 6.
Maybe that does not bother some, including Democrat election officials. But it really bothers us. It is hard to stand there and watch this go on and realize that this person who obviously has no clue what they are voting for just canceled your vote. They took away your ability to choose the representative of your choice.
For example, we would be willing to bet a steak dinner that most of these "voters" had no clue who many (most?) of the Council of State candidates they voted for when they voted straight party. To anyone who doubts it, if we can arrange it we'll give you ten dollars every time one of these "voters" can correctly tell you who they voted for as State Superintendent if you'll give us a dollar for each one who cannot tell you who June Atkinson is.
Now we recognize that in some counties Republicans do the same thing. They vote straight party Republican and can't tell you who they voted for. That's is just as bad.
Straight party voting should be abolished. Period. Pure and simple. Do away with it.
Secondly, eliminate "voting assistance." If a person is not able to cast a ballot without assistance then they should not vote. Period. Pure and simple.
Thirdly, and most importantly, a competency test should be developed that ever person who registers to vote should pass. It should be comparable to the test given to naturalized citizens. The elections people even have these fancy, expensive handicap voting machines that will read aloud the ballot and allow the person to say their choice into a microphone.
Simply put, we need to reform voting in this country. If you are not capable of voting you are not qualified to vote.
Think about it. These several hundred unqualified voters made the difference in these two races. And each one of them cast an uninformed vote equal to yours.
