At the November 2, 2010 election, Bridgeport, Connecticut, only printed 21,000 ballots, even though the city has 63,000 registered voters. This comprehensive newspaper story describes the cascading consequences of that decision. The city ran out of ballots, so election officials photocopied more, but that in turn caused many other problems. Thanks to Sam Edelston for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Since when has CT been in the election law STONE AGE ???
Most rational STATE regimes have a law requiring ballots = about at least 80 percent of registered voters.
P.R. and App.V. — ONE election per year.
Any New Age combined ballot printers and scanners ???
How many UN- used ballots end up in land fills or add to air pollution by being burned ???
In 2006 about 20,000 people cast a vote for governor in Bridgeport. In 2010 there were about 10,500 more registered voters than 2006 and heavier than normal turnout statewide was expected. Also Clinton and Obama both visited Bridgeport not long before the election which one would think would increase turnout in a heavily Dem city. Yet, only 1,000 more ballots were ordered than the votes cast in 2006. Someone was negligent.
Any chance that ALL the courts involved in the disaster will COMMAND/ORDER a NEW election — whatever the cost in the regime — to merely have some attempt to have some sort of Democracy in B. city ???