Is it unpatriotic to question the election results?

[Will F.D. People]

Given that the election irregularities of the 2004 Presidential election were minor, easily explainable by simple acts of incompetence rather than fraud, and not substantial enough to have any impact on the overall result, is it unpatriotic to continue to question the election results?

One could argue that casting doubt on the election process without basis in fact serves to undermine the democratic institutions of the country. Casting doubt over the legitimacy of the elected rulers in effect thwarts the clearly expressed will of the people. Is this, in fact, an unpatriotic way to express displeasure with the results of the election?

I think it is and I voted "Yes".

[qwerty]

It's not unpatriotic, but it is idiotic and ignotant. It's different then say, 2000, when there was an actual basis to question the results.

[Alcon]

I don't really consider it unpatriotic as much as really, really stupid.

[MODU]

Not unpatriotic.  However, there have been no clear signs of out-right fraud (note Ukraine) to make an argument that the election was stolen. 

[??????????]

MODU,

Register on the fantasy boards.

[MODU]

MODU,

Register on the fantasy boards.

hehehe . . . if I had time to dedicate to it, I might.    I think this is my first time on here in almost two weeks.

[??????????]

MODU,

Register on the fantasy boards.

hehehe . . . if I had time to dedicate to it, I might.    I think this is my first time on here in almost two weeks.

I could help you along. We need a fair minded individual such as yourself.

[MODU]

MODU,

Register on the fantasy boards.

hehehe . . . if I had time to dedicate to it, I might.    I think this is my first time on here in almost two weeks.

I could help you along. We need a fair minded individual such as yourself.

hehehe . . . let me think about it bud.   

[The Vorlon]

I think it is actually very patriotic to questiion the government.

Jefferson and the Boys based the US constitution and system on the (valid) assuption than people are corrupt and that the people, collectively, should watch their elected officiasls like a hawk, and that multible checks and balances were needed as a defense agaist tyrants.

It is our duty and our privilidge as good citizens to question.

But like all privilidges, if abused it becomes endangered.

The "tin foil hat" crazyness of the left is a disservice to both the Democratric party and democracy it's self.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you were an Iraqi who questioned the elections where Saddam got almost 100% would you be unpatriotic?

[Will F.D. People]

If you were an Iraqi who questioned the elections where Saddam got almost 100% would you be unpatriotic?

I think there is a distinction between protesting an election where there is clear evidence of fraud (Iraq, Ukraine) versus taking small problems and blowing them out of all proportion for the purpose of casting doubt on the legitimacy of an election.

I am not saying that there are not issues that we would do well to address. Having different standards in different parts of the state for accepting provisional ballots is something I think needs to be tackled. There are others. But to say that Bush would not have won the 2004 election if the problems had not existed is just so far removed from anything factual that I think people who maintain that position are undermining democracy in this country.

To sum up my position:

Pointing out problems in the election and suggesting ways to fix them --> Stengthens Democracy

Saying the the Presidential Election of 2004 is somehow illegitimate --> Undermines Democracy

[A18]

Not unpatriotic, but hilariously stupid.

[MODU]

If you were an Iraqi who questioned the elections where Saddam got almost 100% would you be unpatriotic?

No, you and your family would be raped, tortured, and killed.

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. While Ohio wasn't stolen, a couple of elections in 2004 were probably stolen (both parties were at it o/c).

Simply screaming "Unpatriotic" at people with different opinions (how ever daft) is idiotic

[King]

No. It's a civil right!

[A18]

No. It's a civil right!

It's a civil right to write a novel about how much your country sucks and why you wish someone would nuke it.

[Will F.D. People]

Let me pose this hypothetical. Suppose someone out there hates George W. Bush and they want to cripple his presidency "by any means necessary". They believe this is their right and in fact their civic duty to do so because he is an awful President (so this person believes).

So out of whole cloth, this person invents a story that George W. Bush shoots heroin. Look at the facts: We know that he likes to keep to a set schedule: this must be so he can fix up at regular times. He is known the leave White House parties early; again, why does he need to get some privacy so badly? Under Bush, we never see his helicopter take off from the White House lawn anymore; this must be when he meets with his drug dealer. He is known to sometimes speak eloquently and other times have a hard time finding the right word -- just like other heroin addicts like John Lennon. That bodyguard in Chile -- his bag man! And he must have been under the influence of a narcotic or he would have pounced on Kerry's bogus statements during the first debate.

So this person who hates George W. Bush organizes protests with people waving placards saying "Take the H out of the White House" and so forth. A low-rated TV talk show on a mainstream media outlet takes notice and starts to fixate on the "evidence" for the story and gives the "movement" some credibility. Gallup issues a poll, and Brian Williams solemnly reads off the teleprompter that "For the first time since Woodron Wilson's administration, 25% of all Americans believe their president is in a drug-induced stupor."

I think the actions of this hypothetical person would be unpatriotic. Yes, we have a right to criticize the president, the election process, Kenneth Blackwell, and 51% of the people of Ohio. I believe that with that we have the duty to make responsible criticism -- criticism that does not undermine our institutions. Criticism that has some basis in fact, not based on politically-motivated hatred.

[Akno21]

Let me pose this hypothetical. Suppose someone out there hates George W. Bush and they want to cripple his presidency "by any means necessary". They believe this is their right and in fact their civic duty to do so because he is an awful President (so this person believes).

So out of whole cloth, this person invents a story that George W. Bush shoots heroin. Look at the facts: We know that he likes to keep to a set schedule: this must be so he can fix up at regular times. He is known the leave White House parties early; again, why does he need to get some privacy so badly? Under Bush, we never see his helicopter take off from the White House lawn anymore; this must be when he meets with his drug dealer. He is known to sometimes speak eloquently and other times have a hard time finding the right word -- just like other heroin addicts like John Lennon. That bodyguard in Chile -- his bag man! And he must have been under the influence of a narcotic or he would have pounced on Kerry's bogus statements during the first debate.

So this person who hates George W. Bush organizes protests with people waving placards saying "Take the H out of the White House" and so forth. A low-rated TV talk show on a mainstream media outlet takes notice and starts to fixate on the "evidence" for the story and gives the "movement" some credibility. Gallup issues a poll, and Brian Williams solemnly reads off the teleprompter that "For the first time since Woodron Wilson's administration, 25% of all Americans believe their president is in a drug-induced stupor."

I think the actions of this hypothetical person would be unpatriotic.

If 25% of Americans believe that, it doesn't really matter whether it's patriotic or not, because we are totally screwed if we have that low intelligence. People have the right to make up anything they want and people have the right to believe anything they want. They also have the right to reject it. It has nothing to do with patriotism.

[Democratic Hawk]

Certainly not! However, I don't think there are any real grounds for challenging the result of the 2004 election

Those of us who dislike Bush, his policies or the Republicans need to be working our butt's off to get an "electable" Democrat into the White House in 2008

What's done is done and for better or worse, 51% of American voters decided to re-elect one of the most incompetent Presidents ever

Dave

[M]

It is not unpatriotic. It is, however, undemocratic, as it decreases the legitimacy of the entire system, amkes it more difficult to support democracy abroad, and greatly increases the likelihood of an eventual rejected election, revolution, and dictatorship, from near nil to an unlikely but distinct possibility.

[Andrew]

It is not unpatriotic. It is, however, undemocratic . . .

Was it undemocratic of the Ukrainians to question the results of their election?  Was it undemocratic of our government to question the results of the Ukrainian election?

[Will F.D. People]

It is not unpatriotic. It is, however, undemocratic . . .

Was it undemocratic of the Ukrainians to question the results of their election?  Was it undemocratic of our government to question the results of the Ukrainian election?

No, because, in the election in the Ukraine there was clear evidence of fraud. If there were no evidence of fraud, then yes, it would be undemocratic.  Just like in Ohio and Florida there is no evidence of fraud, so it is undemocratic to continue to insist the election results are illegitimate.

[agcatter]

Not unpatriotic.  This is America.  You can question anything.

However, is it sane to do so?  I don't believe so in light of the fact that there just isn't anything there.

Good lord people.  Kerry lost Ohio by 120,000 votes!  Compare that to 1976 when Ford lost that state to Carter by less than 10,000.  You didn't see Republicans that year hollering fraud.

I would invite my Democratic conspiracy buffs to take a look at the 1960 election.  Look at the Kennedy margins in
Illinois, NM, Minn, Hawaii, Texas, Nevada.  You didn't see Nixon screaming for recounts in an election that was a hundred times closer than this one.

Let it go.  It looks ridiculous.  You are not helping the image of your party.

[J.R. Brown]

It's not unpatriotic to question election results. If there is clear evidence of corruption in an election its our duty as citizens to question our government. However, when there is no question that a candidate won legitimately you're not helping anyone by spouting out baseless claims of fraud and corruption with the system.