Is it stupid to question the election results?

[A18]

Well?

[Alcon]

U.S., I assume?

Yes.

[A18]

Yes, the 2004 U.S. election results.

[Andrew]

I think there are two equally stupid views to hold regarding this election:

1.  It absolutely must have been stolen.

2.  It could not possibly have been stolen.

[A18]

The possibility that it could have been stolen is equal to the possibility that 1984 could have been stolen.

[Will F.D. People]

I wish simple stupidity were involved. I think that there are people actively trying to overturn the election results simply because they do not like who won and are comfortable substituting their preference for the clearly expressed will of the people.

[A18]

If they're trying to overturn it, they're stupid. The Electoral College votes tomorrow. Game over.

[Will F.D. People]

I think there are two equally stupid views to hold regarding this election:

1.  It absolutely must have been stolen.

2.  It could not possibly have been stolen.

It is not a mathematical certainty that it is impossible to have stolen the election. There are lots of things that are not impossible but are so unlikely they are effectively impossible.

It is possible that all the air molecules in the room you are reading this in will rush to the far side of the room and you'll explode.

It is possible that a given roulette wheel in Las Vegas will land on the same number 1,000 spins in a row.

It is possible that an entire NFL season can be played with every game ending in the score 2-2.

I agree that we need to watch our elections to make sure they are above board. But this election? Was not stolen.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, even if it was. (I don't think it was, mind you)

[Andrew]

The Electoral College votes tomorrow. Game over.

That's not necessarily true.  Remember Hawaii, 1960.

[emailking]

I think it's fine to question, but by now you should have decided that Bush won. It's still fine to emphasize the irregularities though, so long as focus is on improvement for the future.

[A18]

The Electoral College votes tomorrow. Game over.

That's not necessarily true.  Remember Hawaii, 1960.

The point isn't that the results are certified. The point is that you have less than 24 hours to overcome a 100,000 vote margin, and then it's over and done with.

[Andrew]

The point isn't that the results are certified. The point is that you have less than 24 hours to overcome a 100,000 vote margin, and then it's over and done with.

No; the point is that the recount in Hawaii was not completed until after the electors had voted.  The certified result at the time they voted had given the victory to Nixon--but what mattered in the end was the way the people had actually voted.

As a point of fact, I'm not trying to overcome anything--I'm just pointing out that there were a tremendous number of problems with the election in Ohio, and that the process does not end tomorrow.

[A18]

There is a Republican legislature, Republican Secretary of State, Republican Congress, a Supreme Court of 9 justices, 7 of whom were appointed by Republicans, and a 100,000 vote margin. It ends today.

[Andrew]

And if the recount shows otherwise, to hell with the people.

Nice.

[A18]

We're talking about whether or not you're going to be able to overturn the results or not. I told you trying to do that is stupid, because it isn't going to happen.

As for the will of the people, that's already known beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hawaii 1960 margin: 100 votes. Ohio 2004 margin: 100,000 votes. Sorry, 100,000 votes is not close historically.

[Andrew]

As for the will of the people, that's already known beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hawaii 1960 margin: 100 votes. Ohio 2004 margin: 100,000 votes. Sorry, 100,000 votes is not close historically.

The margin in the Ukraine was 871,402 votes.

Your point, made very clearly, was that because there are Republicans in a position to make decisions about the outcome of this election, it doesn't really matter what the vote totals are.

[A18]

Ukraine is not in question because of the margin. It is in question over matters of fraud.

My point, made very clearly, is that Democrats cannot steal Ohio because Republicans are in the position to make these decisions, and there's a clear winner: George W. Bush.

[Andrew]

There are suspicions of fraud in Ohio.  If the evidence is there, it will come out.  If there is no conclusive evidence, that will come out, too.

Nobody is attempting to steal anything.

[A18]

You're the only one who has not yet been informed: the election is over.

[Andrew]

Obviously, the election is over.  The recount is not over, and neither are any court cases that may arise.

My point is that today does not represent a deadline.

January 6 is the deadline.

[emailking]

Sorry, but Andrew's right. What's done today only matters if the Congress accepts it on January 6. For example, suppose the legislature sent a competing slate of electors to reflect the results on the recount. The congress could vote to keep that slate instead of the slate voting today. Or, if there's only 1, the Congress could decide to just not accept them period. Then the election would go to the house. Granted, none of this is going to happen. But January 6 is the real day that matters.

[Will F.D. People]

I am watching the Massachusetts electors meet on C-SPAN right now. C-SPAN said that at this hour we were supposed to be watching the Texas meeting. Then right when it was supposed to start, the C-SPAN announcer said that they were having "audio problems" and showed us Massachusetts instead. This sounds pretty fishy -- after all, haven't they know about the Texas electoral college meeting for, well, years? This is obvious proof of the left-wing bias of C-SPAN.

Be that as it may, an incredible thing happened while the Massachusetts electors were voting. Each elector got to stand up and make a little speech as they cast their vote. The first elector said that it was important that every vote counts and that you should count every vote, and she was going to dedicate herself to election reform, and the second elector said that he was glad to live in a state where every vote was counted.

The people who get picked as electors are party activists. I take this as a sign that it is not just the loony left that is using the "delegitimize the vote" strategy to undermine the President. It is rank-and-file Democratic leaders.

[Alcon]

I am watching the Massachusetts electors meet on C-SPAN right now. C-SPAN said that at this hour we were supposed to be watching the Texas meeting. Then right when it was supposed to start, the C-SPAN announcer said that they were having "audio problems" and showed us Massachusetts instead. This sounds pretty fishy -- after all, haven't they know about the Texas electoral college meeting for, well, years? This is obvious proof of the left-wing bias of C-SPAN.

Be that as it may, an incredible thing happened while the Massachusetts electors were voting. Each elector got to stand up and make a little speech as they cast their vote. The first elector said that it was important that every vote counts and that you should count every vote, and she was going to dedicate herself to election reform, and the second elector said that he was glad to live in a state where every vote was counted.

The people who get picked as electors are party activists. I take this as a sign that it is not just the loony left that is using the "delegitimize the vote" strategy to undermine the President. It is rank-and-file Democratic leaders.

I don't see why they couldn't have audio problems?

[Will F.D. People]

I don't see why they couldn't have audio problems?

Replacing Texas with Massachusetts? It is all too tidy . . .