How do I know there was vote stealing in the 26th State Representative District race in which incumbent and pension thief Christian Mitchell is leading Jay Travis by around 400 votes?
Because 3rd Ward Alderman Pat Dowell said, “Jay Travis is a sore loser and a desperate losing candidate. Her accusations are preposterous. I respect the voting process and I would never do electioneering at the polling place — that’s illegal.”
When a Chicago Alderman says that the accusations of electioneering at a polling place are “preposterous” because its “illegal,” then you know that is just what they did.
When they go, “moi?”
Guilty.
Plus people saw the stealing going on.
CTU VP Jesse Sharkey saw them handing out wrong ballots where he was poll watching.
Poll watchers at three other precincts were given final vote tallies that read zero across the board, making it impossible for them to compare the numbers they saw at the polls with what was reported to the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
And Alderman Dowell says accusations of vote stealing and electioneering are preposterous.
In Chicago!
Damn. I watched a former Machine Democratic Committeemen electioneering where I was poll watching. It was only when I got up and stood right next to him that he stopped and left.
As of now, Jay Travis says it is too close to call and is not issuing a concession.
They’re calling Travis a sore loser.
Good. We all should be sore about cheating in an election.
First they said that her campaign wasn’t viable.
But in the final days, corporate and charter donations were flying into Christian Mitchell’s campaign bank account by those who were terrified that Jay was a hell of a lot more than just viable.
Did she win?
Maybe. If the count is fair and there was no cheating.
And a fair count is what everybody deserves.
Whether they are running on the north side or south side.
Fred Klonsky 
So what is being done? A recount? A lawsuit? Are they really getting away with this?
I heard a recount depends on how close the vote is, by percentage. If it is close enough, the recount is paid for by state funds of some kind. If the vote is not close enough, a candidate can still get a recount, but has to pay the costs involved.
The question comes to mind, what if the candidate requests the recount, agrees to pay, and then the new count is close enough to qualify for the free recount. Do they still have to pay the cost? What about if after the recount they find Jay Travis won the election? Would the cost of the recount still need to be paid by her campaign? I get the feeling the cost of a recount is being used to make it easier to steal elections unchallenged.
I no longer have the energy to be at a poll from dawn until the final count is called or communicated in. But from my first time in 1968 for “Cousins and Young” (for the Democratic convention) over by the projects through 2006 watching for the opposition in the 21st Ward (where the GDs had an inclination for Howard Brookins Jr.’s candidacy) through this one, let’s just agree that Chicago is Chicago.
However, this. Two years ago, we “won” the 45th Ward aldermanic race for John Arena by fewer than 30 votes. The other side said it was going to demand a recount, then thought wisely not to. At some point, a recount is expensive and you have to play the percentages. Also, 300 to 400 votes is a lot to overcome. Perhaps the wisdom is to “pull a Guzzardi,” remain active, and be ready for the next time around. All those DFER and Stand for Children dollars will still be going for Christian Mitchell, just as all those Madigan and other dollars went to Berrios.