About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

New Voting Systems

by: jmcbride

Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 18:37:43 PM EDT


Does anyone know if the Boards of Elections across the state have any review process following the primary to make things better for the general election in November?  

In any event, it might be useful for TAP bloggers, occasional posters and readers to write here about their experiences with the new voting systems.

I voted in the village of Croton on Hudson in Westchester County and then was a poll watcher at PS32 in the Bronx for about 6 hours.  My observations after the flip.

jmcbride :: New Voting Systems
It appears to me that there was little or no thought put into the movement of the voter through the polling place with the new system.   Both polling sites I saw essentially set themselves up as if there still were lever machines.  The result is that voters signing in and those headed to the ballot scanner to cast their ballot got in each other's way.  There were no big crowds at either polling place, but with just a handful it got very confusing.   If there were long lines, it would be very frustrating for the voter accustomed to the lever machines.  While poll watching, yesterday I saw one voter leave in frustration without having voted.  

There was far too much handling of the voter's ballot by poll workers.  In the ideal world, the voter would be handed a ballot by the poll worker and then no one else would touch it until after the ballot has been cast.  I observed poll workers holding completed ballots, both in and out of the privacy sleeve and the voter was no where to be found.  All those voters were eventually tracked down, we hope, and their ballots were placed in the scanner.  

In Westchester, my polling place has 5 or 6 EDs.  Each ED had their own scanner.  In the Bronx, there were 7 EDs and there were two scanners. Apparently, there were supposed to have been three, but clearly there were only two.  This smells a bit like Ohio to me.  Between the 7 EDs there were just 260 votes cast.  There might be ten times that many in November.

Completing the paper ballots required much more poll worker assistance than I have observed in the past.  When a voter needs assistance with completing their ballot, generally the poll workers try to have both a Dem poll worker and a Rep poll worker present.  But privacy booths are so small that it was not possible for two poll workers to be present,one helping and one watching.  When some voters went to use the BMD (ballot marking device), it generally took about 5 or 6 poll workers to assist.  

One more observation.  I think there should be ban on cell phone use while completing a ballot.  On several occasions I observed voters talking on their phones while completing their ballots.  This did not sit well with me.  But a voter is allowed to take a cheat sheet with them to the polls or bring anyone to assist them, so what's wrong with a cell phone.  I realized later that cell phone users could prove to the person on the other end that they had voted a certain way by sending a photograph of their ballot.  This would be a relatively simple way to pay people for their votes.  

So what did you see?  

Poll
Does the BOE have to improve the voting experience before November?
No way anything gets improved
It needs a ton of work
It just needs tweaking
It seems fine to me

Results

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

New Voting Systems | 35 comments
My experience was awful (0.00 / 0)
It was so awful that I'm planning to write a separate post on how the new system is a tragedy.

It's not the machines themselves, it's the three-step system of voting that takes an intimately private act and turns it obscenely public.


The Ballot Markers are poor (4.00 / 1)
Unfortunately, there was only one decent one on the market, and no county chose it.  I don't know what to do about that, I think we'll have to wait another 10 years.

In Tompkins County, they had worked out the traffic flow correctly (a circle around the room) and it worked just fine.  Your local elections officials need to fix that.

There's one thing which needs to be told to every voter in advance, which wasn't: you can put your ballot in the machine FACE DOWN.

That should be mandated.  That is the simple way to get privacy while walking from the booth to the ballot box, assuming nobody is standing under you.

I think these two things -- traffic flow and secret ballot -- are pretty straightforward to fix, but someone has to do it.


Face down (0.00 / 0)
The problem with that concept is when you have so many items on the ballot that some of them are on the "back."

In November, everyone in the state will be voting on at least eight races: Governor (and Lt. Gov.), State Comptroller, Attorney General, two U.S. Senate races, U.S. House, state Senate, and state Assembly.  That will almost certainly fill the front of the ballot.

If there are any special local elections or ballot proposals, they will be on the back.

The problem is that poll workers don't have it drummed into their heads that any opportunity to see a voter's ballot must be avoided.  Period.

Back when we had the lever machines (the "good old days"?), I saw several occasions when a voter had troubles inside the machine, and on those occasions a poll worker managed to avoid entering the machine in order to "help," because it would have been a really obvious breach of the secret ballot.  We need protocols in place (and better privacy screens) to ensure that such a breach will be as obvious now as it was then.


[ Parent ]
OK, agreed mostly, but I think we have a law.... (0.00 / 0)
"The problem with that concept is when you have so many items on the ballot that some of them are on the "back." "

NY still has a full-face ballot law, right?  They still have to fit all races on one side if I'm not mistaken.

"The problem is that poll workers don't have it drummed into their heads that any opportunity to see a voter's ballot must be avoided.  Period. "

Absolutely.


[ Parent ]
Yes, it is my understanding (0.00 / 0)
that the full-face ballot law remained in place.

[ Parent ]
Yup. (4.00 / 1)
Things worked quite well here in Tompkins Co.-- I think one polling place had a small problem that was only in closing out and reporting, just meant their tally came in late.

I liked it better than lever machines, print is larger and easier to read, and the process was faster, as my husband and I could both mark ballots at the same time.

Yeah, they could have made more effort to emphasize either the face-down thing or the privacy sleeves.  But, that is poll workers, and they are totally the weak link now, as before.  We should pay them better, it would help.

As far as the cell phone/picture thing: could have done that with a lever machine, too.... It is as easy to fake that now as before, as you could send a picture of your ballot, prior to registering your vote (pull lever or feed into machine), then make changes and register it.    


[ Parent ]
secret ballot is just gone (0.00 / 0)
At my polling place (pocantico, westchester) the markers bled through the paper, so it was easy enough to see the location of the marks on the back!

No matter what way you hold your paper, there's nothing stopping others from flashing theirs if they want to sell their vote.


[ Parent ]
What markers? (0.00 / 0)
Pens or pencils (and it should be blue or black pens provided in the "privacy booths") don't bleed through; anything else is the wrong kind of marker.

[ Parent ]
In my polling place I was told (0.00 / 0)
that we were required to use the BOE supplied black markers not our own pencil or pen.

My guess is that this and ballot design are things left up to the various counties to decide for themselves.

In my county the ballot had one write-in box under the first candidate for each office.

In neighboring Albany county they placed a write-in box underneath each candidates name. They ended up with an unexpectedly high write-in vote in the primary and the current theory is that people saw the circle in the write-in box under a candidates name and thought that was how to vote for the named candidate. I quick glance at the county boe website showed a rather uniform 158 votes or so as write-ins for many of the offices which supports this theory.


[ Parent ]
Wow, did they get that wrong (0.00 / 0)
If the marker shows through the ballot, it's the wrong kind.  Period.  Someone (hi, there) should demand that they fix the problem before November 2.

[ Parent ]
Ew. (0.00 / 0)
OK, need some improvements there sure enough!

[ Parent ]
FYI, election districts need to be enlarged. (0.00 / 0)
Any case where they're in the same polling place and have the same offices on the ballot, they should be the same election district.  This eliminates a lot of nonsense.

Haha (0.00 / 0)
Up in my part of the state that could have people driving 20-30 miles to their polling plass. And People in NYC bitch when they have to walk more than 5 blocks! No thanks.

[ Parent ]
You didn't understand my statement. (0.00 / 0)
Any case where they're in the same polling place and have the same offices on the ballot, they should be the same election district.  This eliminates a lot of nonsense.

We often have multiple districts in the same polling place in Tompkins County, and the same was described in the diary in Westchester ("In Westchester, my polling place has 5 or 6 EDs.")

Sometimes this is necessary because different offices are on the ballot in different districts (different city council wards, etc.).  When there aren't, however, it just creates unnecceary confusion.

If the districts have different polling places distant from each other, that's reason enough to keep them different.


[ Parent ]
ah ok. (0.00 / 0)
Yeah the districts are the way they are for committee reasons mostly.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
So I was there when these machines were chosen; I played with all of the prototypes for both the Ballot Marking Devices and the Ballot Boxes. In the end there were only two reasonable options: The ES&S Machines that most of the big counties took, and the Sequoia machines that the smaller ones took.

The Sequoia people promised BIG and delivered small - delays, broken machines, all sorts of issues. Additionally, the Sequoia Machine and Ballot Marking Device were integrated in the model I was shown, meaning that a handicapped voter could delay others for dozens of minutes. I don't believe this was ever changed. The ES&S had a separate Automark.

The idea behind putting only two machines at a 7 district polling place is simple: those machines cost about $1000 a piece to setup, factoring in man-hours, polling place workers, trucks, and (in most counties) paying ES&S or Sequoia to set them up for us. So the commissioners (1 R 1 D), about 6 weeks out, have to make an educated guess  as to what the turnout will be, and set up the smallest number of machines they think will handle it. This was also true of lever machines; my county had a rule of thumb capping consolidation to 1 lever machine for 5 EDs and only in really low turnout elections. Both the Lever Machines and the Electronic machines have capacity issues, the lever machines can only handle 999 votes, and the ballot machines ranged from 400-1000 depending on the model. I don't think your commissioners expected the massive turnout (for a primary) we had yesterday, and certainly didn't see it coming 6 weeks ago. Hard to blame them: did you see it coming?

But as to your actual experiences: Your poll workers should NEVER be touching your ballots! You should be feeding it into the machine yourself! WTF???? Someone needs to be fired or something, that's very, VERY wrong. And yes, your commissioners need to train their poll workers on room flow - the machine shouldn't be near the desk.

I also heard reports of poll workers only letting one person fill out a ballot at a time, which is wacky. The idea is that 10 or 15 or 100 people can all vote at once and then the machine only needs about 6 seconds per voter (The Sequoia ones take more like 10 IIRC). I think the issue is that New Yorkers do a LOT of undervoting, and undervotes always get bumped back out at the voter, who may have walked away. My county (Erie) did a great job of posting signs training voters on how to vote and what to do. If your county didn't, call them and complain.

Also, if your county chose the Sequoia machines, sorry. Yeah its a local business. BFD. Their product sucks, and this matters to much to use a sucky product.

In Ohio they hand you a legal sized manilla envelope with your ballot so you can walk around with it and you hand it back to them as you leave. Seems simple enough.

I think most of these problems will work themselves out over time. Just be thankful we didn't do this in a presidential year.


Turnout (0.00 / 0)
According to Liz Benjamin, who says she got it from the state Board of Elections, turnout was:

Democrats: 11.28 percent
Republicans: 16.27 percent
Conservatives 13.48 percent

Not exactly barn-burning, even for a primary.  In fact, the Democratic turnout was about the same percentage as it was for last year's NYC primary, and that was considered mediocre.  2005's NYC Dem primary turnout was about 17%, and that was considered low.

If "high" turnout was the problem, someone ought to be fired for being a ridiculously pessimistic jerk.


[ Parent ]
I think you missed my point (0.00 / 0)
It was huge versus what was expected 6 weeks ago, when the AG race was sleepy and the Governors race was a coronation.

[ Parent ]
After being there at the show-and-tells (0.00 / 0)
The ES&S was definitely a better pair of machines.

The Sequoia's "merged" ballot marker and counter is simply a mistake due to its delay potential, and I'm not sure why local boards didn't recognize this rather obvious problem -- probably the lever-machine mentality.  

The Automark had a nicer ballot marker, too.


[ Parent ]
Technically (0.00 / 0)
The machine can still accept ballots while someone is voting. That's what the counties were sold on. However, would it ever cross the average person's mind that they can do that? Or that its okay to go up and use the other side of a machine someone is actively using to vote?

[ Parent ]
Counties that didn't pilot realize now that they should have (0.00 / 0)
NYS system allows each county a great deal of autonomy in setting up process. As a result, there is little sharing of information or experience. Each county BOE has their little fiefdom.

For the 2009 elections, each county had the choice of one of 3 options: (1) stay 100% lever, (2) do a pilot of paper ballots in selected polling locations and use levers in the rest of the county, or (3) go 100% with paper ballots.

I live in Putnam, which took option 3. This proved to be the smart move for a small county. I think about 17-18 counties did this. Another group of counties piloted.  NYC, Westchester, LI and a few other places decided to do a Scarlet O'Hara and think about it tomorrow, so they delayed the entire process to 2010.  Had they paid even minimal attention to the experience of other counties, they might have benefited from that choice but in reading and hearing about experiences throughout the state, it looks as though they did not.

NYDLC prepared an anecdotal report for the state BOE about the Putnam County experience, based on reports by the Putnam County Democratic Lawyers Council members who poll monitored.  Putnam even experienced a 100% hand recount of a Repub primary for Sheriff (which I observed) that resulted in a change in about .2% of the votes cast (that is "point 2 percent" not "2 percent" - I'm saying this from memory but it was that order of magnitude) And reports were filed by each county BOE. So the information was there.

As to privacy - here is the process as it should be: (1) sign in and get ballot, (2) go to next table, get pen and privacy sleeve, (3) enter privacy booth, mark ballot, (4) before leaving privacy booth, place ballot in privacy sleeve, (5) keeping ballot in privacy sleeve at all times, feed ballot into scanner (you do not need to remove the ballot from the privacy sleeve in order to feed it into the scanner). So NO ONE sees the marked ballot at any time.

There is a need to improve the privacy booths - the type varies from county to county, but they all seem to have gone for cheap instead of effective.

The net net is that it is a new system, and any time a new system is introduced there are problems, because either the process that worked on paper doesn't work in practice, or, as many have pointed out, the poll workers incorrectly implement the process (whether because they were poorly trained or they are incompetent or they are just tired - I've been a poll worker and it is a long day.)


NYT editorial says it all (4.00 / 1)
http://nyti.ms/dkEVJC

"Voting in New York City was an ordeal, pure and simple, but don't blame the new optical scanner machines. Put the blame where it belongs: on the city's patronage-encrusted Board of Elections....Particularly since the board - a 10-member, two-party bastion of clubhouse lickspittles - chose not to participate in a pilot program test of the system last year. Most upstate counties did take part, and they had far fewer problems on Tuesday."

And you can insert "Westchester", "Suffolk", "Nassau" etc. for NYC.  


That sounds about right to me (4.00 / 1)
Nothing wrong with the new voting system, but, there is still lots wrong with how BOE and pollworkers operate.  Especially in some places.

[ Parent ]
Mine was fairly straightforward, but could be better. (0.00 / 0)
The good:

1.  The mark sense forms only required the little golf pencils to fill in the bubbles.

2.  The scanning machine was flexible enough to allow the ballot to be inserted in either direction, face up or down.  You got immediate feedback as to whether you did everything right.

The not so good;

1.  The little portable carrels where you went to fill out your ballot were too small to provide much of a feeling of privacy.  You would be filling out your ballot in one, and in the adjoining one, someone else would be filling one out facing the opposite direction.  I could, if I wanted to, watch that other person filling in his or her bubbles.  I suggest either getting larger carrels, ones with curtains, or retrofitting the existing ones so I can't see other people voting.

2.  I can see how a bunch of people holding their filled out ballots as they stood in line to stick them in the scanning machine could possible present a privacy issue.  I suggest providing manila folders (which can be reused) to keep the ballots hidden in this case.

In general, everything went fairly smoothly because our district is fairly small.  If you wanted to send an auditor to make sure the machines were working as advertised, ours would be a good one to pick, since you only had around a hundred or so ballots to pick through and compare with the machine's official numbers.  The system generally works, but some tweaks are necessary.


Answer to #2 (4.00 / 2)
They should have provided a "privacy folder" with every ballot.  It's a folder that you can slip the ballot into, and even feed the ballot (with the top sticking out and nothing important showing) directly into the scanner.  If they didn't automatically hand you a privacy folder with your ballot, they didn't do it right.

[ Parent ]
I remember telling the local board members (0.00 / 0)
that they could most certainly buy more impressive booths if they wanted to -- they were just BOOTHS for goodness sakes and anyone can make a booth.  But I guess they went with the mini-booths anyway.

[ Parent ]
Experience in Saratoga County was OK (4.00 / 1)
I completed it in just a few minutes with the help of a poll worker, but I did see at least one person who had to redo their ballot because of a marking error that the machine rejected.

I do worry about the general election though, when there are far more people.


Hopefully (4.00 / 1)
The poll workers have learned some things from this time. The lever machines had 60 years of institutional memory built up - there was never a polling place without someone who had used them before. This is gonna take some time. Its not going to go off without a hitch, but because we chose Optical Scan, you can rest easy that the problems will be caused by stupidity, not evil.

[ Parent ]
Stupidity, Not Evil (4.00 / 1)
That point is to an extent a principal reason for this discussion.  The fact that numerous BOEs across the state did not plan well for the introduction of PBOS raises a concern that they will fail to recognize when evil lurks.  At the polling place where I was, I watched very carefully what was happening with the loose handling of the ballots.  There were some rushes of voters and I had to leave once in a while, but I don't think anything untoward happened while I was there and assume nothing happened when I was not there.  But in a more crowded room, there would have been tons of opportunity for fraud.  TONS!  

Poll workers leaving their stations, their voting rolls and stacks of blank ballots unattended.  Poll workers handling voter's ballots and, sometimes, holding several ballots at the same time. Voter cards were practically flying around the polling station. Blank ballots left unattended after the polls had closed.  The ballot box remaining opened for an extended period of time.  Police officers who had had no training and no rehearsal of their duties, might have been easily distracted. And on and on.  As I said, I saw no evil on Tuesday night, but lots of easy opportunities.


[ Parent ]
Like the lever machines, (4.00 / 1)
These machines cannot prevent fraud, all they can do is show that it occured. If one more ballot is in the machine than person signed the book, there's a problem. No different than with the lever machines, where a poll worker could just keep ringing up votes all day if he wanted.

Why were the cops there?


[ Parent ]
Cops are always at the polls (0.00 / 0)
At least, they're supposed to be there.

[ Parent ]
Weird. (4.00 / 1)
That definitely doesn't happen in Erie County at all.

Must be a New York City thing.


[ Parent ]
Saratoga Springs was fine (0.00 / 0)
No problem in Saratoga Springs with the ballot or the machine, and the poll workers did a great job of explaining everything. In and out in seconds. But, I will agree there was absolutely no privacy to any of this. A poll worker stood right there at the scanner and watched me put my ballot in--I'm sure she was reading my ballot. The privacy booths are a joke. It won't stop me from voting as I wish, but there is no private ballot the way things were set up. I've already contacted our county elections commissioner and he agreed there were problems with privacy and he is looking into ways to fix that.

In my ED.... (0.00 / 0)
...They gave me a folder in which to place my ballot for the short walk from my little cubicle to the machine. No privacy invasion there.


We've got some work ahead of us.

Went ok in Stephentown (0.00 / 0)
I don't think the room flow was set up well. Didn't make a difference for the primary and they will likely have it set up differently for the general anyhow when traffic is higher. The privacy booths are small but not a big deal. The curtains do the trick.

The privacy sleeve was an option. They were not handed out automatically but only if you asked. The poll inspectors did ask me if I wanted one and I accepted.

The ballot was designed ok but there were a few things that probably could have been done to make them more intuitively readable. Darker and thicker lines to draw the separation between offices being one improvement I would make. The line there was the same as those between different candidates for the same office.

The instruction on the privacy sleeve for how to use it and feed the ballot into the scanner was very poor. Thankfully feeding a paper into a scanner is an easy enough process that once we get past the novelty of it I don't expect it to be a problem.

There was a poll inspector specifically assigned to stand near the machine and assist anyone that needed help with it.

The ballot marker was attached to the scanner but set up to be used from the opposite side from where most voters would feed the paper. I did not observe it in use but don't see it as being a problem holding up other voters given the set-up and the presence of a poll inspector instructing other voters to go ahead and feed their ballots into the machine. I was told by the inspector when I asked that it takes a long time for an individual voter to use the ballot marking device.

I was there at the closing and observed the process for shutting down the machine and retrieving the vote counts. It was fairly straight forward though the inspectors stumbled through the process since it was the first time they had done it. I received a copy of the vote tally print out which was a vast improvement over the process of reading the backside of the lever machines, calling out numbers and tallying them and double checking them, etc.

Inside the machine the ballots dropped into an empty section of the cabinet. There was no box inside and the empty space was cavernous by comparison to the ballots. This made for a mess that the poll inspectors needed to restack in order to put into the bag the town clerk then took to the BOE. I would strongly suggest a better feed mechanism for this so that the ballots fall cleanly into an appropriately sized receptacle. This may be problematic if ballot's change size from election to election. Lack of an appropriate receptacle however left inspectors handling ballots and the opportunity for some to be lost, misplaced, left behind, etc. I stuck around to see how they handled it and it was no big deal but these are also people I know personally and trust to simply do their jobs not try to game the system. My concern would be the many districts where this simply is not the case.

The town clerk then took a bag with the various election materials, the ballots and the memory card to the BOE on the other side of the county. This is a chain of custody problem. It is one person holding everything for about 45 minutes as they travel from one side of the county to the other. Again, I trust my particular town clerk but that is beside the point. On the good side, several of us had print-outs from the machine before the single person had control of the memory card and ballots. Even so, a single person having sole control of the card and ballots is a serious chain of custody failure in my view.

Peace,

Andrew


New Voting Systems | 35 comments
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Group News Blog
Jason Gooljar
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Take19
The Community Alliance

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice
Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network
>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox