After almost a week of uninformed comments by conspiracy theorists and some reformers, the New York City Board of Elections has released a report on the tempest in a teapot concerning the short fall of Obama votes on Super Tuesday.

No New York City newspaper other than AM New York has yet to post the story on the report on their websites.

The gist of the report is that in 35 cases, Board of Elections’ employees made mistakes, in 20 instances Police Department employees made the error and in 27 election districts there was no mistake and Obama did receive no votes.

One of the more predictable results of the tempest in the teapot story in last Saturday’s New York Times about inaccurate unofficial results from the New York Presidential Primary was the renewal by some to fix things by removing those pesky politicians from the elections process.

Certain reformers think that a non-partisan approach to running elections rather than the bi-partisan system we use in New York will be a vast improvement.

Now I admit to being a defender of the New York City Board of Elections from unfair and just plain stupid attacks but I will admit that they are not perfect and can be improved.

Saturday’s NY Times printed a story about the published results of the New York Democratic Presidential Primary having numerous errors.

While the story made it clear to anyone who read it closely that the errors would actually have no bearing on the allocation of delegates, the inevitable has happened. Numerous conspiracy theorists got to work immediately and claimed that this was another case of an election being stolen.

I was going to post something about this but late on Saturday, I received an e-mail from Doug Kellner, the Democratic Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections that explained how the votes are counted in New York much better than I could. Here is Kellner’s report –

Last December, I posted about the theory of the two electorates.

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/jerry_skurnik/the_theory_of_the_two_electorates.html

A quick summary of the theory is that a small minority of voters know a lot about issues and politics but that the vast majority of voters know very little about the subject until right before they vote.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192008/news/regionalnews/spitzer_lets_215_killers_go_loose_496829.htm

SPITZER LETS 215 KILLERS GO LOOSE

Records show that 12 of the 19 current members of the Parole Board were appointed by Pataki.

Last week I wrote about the theory of the two electorates. One point I was trying to make is that media coverage of politics is so often wrong because those in the informed electorate assume that the vast majority knows more than they do.

An article in Monday’s New York Times about how Rudy Giuliani has dropped in the polls is a good example of the media refusing to understand this.

From The Times:

Mr. Giuliani’s position has changed notably from even a month ago. For much of this year, Republicans had expressed admiration, and some surprise, at the extent to which he appeared to have dealt with concerns about his views on abortion and gay rights, as well as his private life. Mr. Giuliani showed significant leads in most national polls; he routinely drew warm and enthusiastic receptions from audiences more conservative than he. His advisers say that a recent run of negative news reports, focusing on an extramarital affair and his association with Bernard Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner that Mr. Giuliani recommended as homeland security secretary, is beginning to take a toll. “I am a little disappointed with his personal life,” said Elisabeth Ackerson, speaking about Mr. Giuliani after attending a Town Hall meeting for Mr. Romney on Saturday evening in Londonderry, N.H. She said was trying to decide among Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain and Mr. Giuliani.

Last Friday, I went to hear Charlie Cook, publisher of the Cook Political Report speak about the 2008 Elections at Fordham University’s Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy.

Among the smart and interesting things Cook said was that voters download information about candidates at different times – that people who follow politics learned a lot about the 2008 candidates at the beginning of campaigns and others learn later. Many, Cook said, won’t start paying attention until after the 2008 World Series.

I thought that was smart because it fits a new theory of mine.

I call it the theory of the two electorates and this is it:

With all the media coverage of Governor’s Spitzer’s plan to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver’s licenses, there has been at least one thing missing that could be instructive. 

Many stories state that seven other states issue licenses but I’ve yet to read of hear how this is actually working out in those states. 

I received a few calls on Monday in response to my 2 posts debunking the New York Post on the issue of drivers’ licenses and voting.

I pointed out to the callers something that the Post reporter apparently does not understand.

A New York State drivers’ license is not now and has never been proof that you are eligible to register to vote!

Following up on Sunday’s misleading report about voter registration forms, Monday’s New York Post has another misleading story about the identification required to vote.

The Post states that – “at the polls, voters are asked to show some form of photo ID, like a driver's license, to prove their identity.”

As anyone who has voted in New York can tell you, this is not true!

A form of identification is required of some but not all first time voters – only new voters who registered under the Motor Voter Law.