Poll Worker Rhoda Stevens Does Her Civic Duty

Now, for some (young) people fun. Let's all sing along with Ms. Stefani:

Let me hear you say
This sh$t is bananas, B-A-N-A-N-A-S

I was actually at the polls yesterday -- all day -- and heard reports from voters that this woman actually reached around them at the polling booth and [...] their vote. She told them they had to start over and vote for three. Then she lectured them about how great the incumbents were. She also told folks that this election was "a fight for Maud's life," and that the person would "lose Jane's friendship if they voted for Stich or Brehony." These are direct quotes from people who then filed complaints with the elections officials.

Here's what I don't understand: we were told by the elections officials that they knew she and the husband were nuts, and had done something similar at last year's election.

Why did they let these people serve? And why wait until 6:30pm to let this woman go?

how corrupt can an election get? and why isn't any of the local press writing about this?

Rhoda's documented actions are corrupt. Or are we supposed to just accept voter fraud is the will of the Vienna electorate and stop the negativity? Would any of the Maud voters like to comment on Rhoda's actions?

Anne the problem is no one cares! These rags are not going to do anything to put their job on the line. So basically, no press no story-everything is fine here keep on moving folks. Except of course the ones who actually witnessed this horrible display of voter fraud and down right nastiness played out May 1st. Thank you Jane. But don't worry people who love her, she has job security now!

Vienna got what it deserves, Maud's power base won her the privilege to represent Vienna. What does this mean is small town politics?

Regarding: It doesn't appear Rhoda's impropriety swayed the election as the vote totals are pretty clear, but it does say something about Maud's machine and the voting process in Vienna.

Read This from Leah's Post:
I was actually at the polls yesterday -- all day -- and heard reports from voters that this woman actually reached around them at the polling booth and canceled their vote.

How can you honestly think last years or this years elections are true?

WTH

I think they meant that the total number of votes, despite the irregularities wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome. I agree with this premise as I assume we are talking about one worker telling the odd lot of folks who didn't vote for 3 people to vote again. I'm also assuming not everyone took her advice as well. Deb or Sue would have needed +/-600 more votes to make a difference. Unless this person stopped virtually everyone at her station and made them vote for three for the entire day I don't see this getting them there. Clearly this shouldn't happen.

I'm thinking I might have to take off work next year to volunteer at the polling station just to keep things legit if this is what I can expect.

No, you can actually make an argument and CAN prove that if someone was telling even 50-75% of the voters who are voting for either Susan or Debra who were trying to under vote (which is legal) that it could have made the difference between one of the challengers winning (not both) and one of the incumbents losing.

So, I don't think the results should stand, but that's politics.

The way the incumbents knew that this has happened in the past, and were so cavalier about it happening this year, makes me suspect that other voting irregularities may have occurred that could have even made more of an impact.

I am not saying they did, but if there is even the remote possibility that someone's vote didn't count, then the election is not fair. So, IMHO, a closer look needs to be done, and this should have never been allowed to occur two years in a row. But I guess if the incumbents are hell-bent on winning no matter what, they can get away with whatever it takes? Right Frank?

I can't imagine why anyone would fight that hard to make sure they win, anyway, it's not like Vienna is Chicago or Dallas. Maud certainly likes her power, though. She would never win with legitimate press, and real professional town employees, because from what I heard, they were all for Stevens getting away with this corrupt behavior, too.

You have to wonder why?

Guess who recommends the poll workers? Vienna Town Council of course! Let's see Maud is up for reelection and she appoints the poll workers to influence voters? Sure, why not!

If someone told me that there was one indiscretion at the polls I would guess that there were persons who voted who are no longer residents Vienna.

I'd like to clarify my earlier comment - just so everybody understands: to my knowledge no votes were cancelled after they were finally cast. What we're talking about here is that Rhoda interrupted the voting process to direct the voter who and how to vote at the polling machine.

Myself, JP Brehony, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, and the election officials were told directly by a voter that she was in the process of bullet voting when Rhoda interrupted her before the final "vote" button was pushed, reached around her and "cancelled" (this was the voter's word) her decisions. The voter was told to start over, and that she had to vote for three.

Afterwards, I heard from a few more voters, whom I do not know by name, that they were also interrupted by Rhoda during the process of voting and told that they couldn't bullet vote, and were made to start over. One of these woman was so confused after Rhoda's interruptions that she said, "I don't even know who I voted for."

I know that some voters filed complaints, and some refused, saying they didn't want to "get involved" or be hassled.

Not to nitpick, but I'll nitpick:

"Deb or Sue would have needed +/-600 more votes to make a difference."

Actually, only about 300 people needed to decide differently. That is to say, Let's say that Candidate A had 1000 votes. Candidate B had 400 votes. You're saying that Candidate B needed 600 votes. In fact, she (in this case) only needed 300 votes to have swung from Candidate A's column to her column:

1000 - 300 = 700

400 + 300 = 700

So it was, at least in theory, closer than you think. Of course, I suppose this ignores the "human element," including things like dogmatic attachment to a particular candidate (i.e., getting a "Maud vote" to swing is probably easier said than done, right? Same goes for a "Stich vote," I suppose). This invites the speculation that, if there were an election worker systematically convincing people to change their votes, each changed vote would effectively be a "2" under your calculus, and that adds up pretty quickly, right?

That said, I just don't see Vienna town voting as usually including many "undecideds," who would be swayed that easily one way or the other -- this site is a perfect example of that (getting one of you to vote for Maud would be more difficult than teaching a goldfish to sit, roll-over and play dead; likewise for what you describe as the "Maudites"). Moreover, I'm not sure that what's-her-face even interacted with or affected 300 voters.

Anyway, like I said, it's just a nit, that's all, I guess. After all, I'm SUPPOSED to be preachy, right? (I'm really on a roll with the funnies today).

Well, that's it for me on this site. I'm sure I'll be seeing some of you around town ...

>>> Well, that's it for me on this site.

- Cooler Head?

Thanks for not addressing the pink elephant in the room named Rhoda...

The more I talk to people the more I hear the same stories consistantly and that is people looming behind them watching them vote, and telling them to vote for three. I am grateful to the Washington Post for doing this story.