Ohio challenge

[J. J.]

Here is an interesting quote from the article cited in the first part of the thread.  Some people looking at it "found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election."   Those people were Kerrry and his attornies.

If there's ever a murder, you'll say that there's no evidence that there's anything that would bring the person back to life.

I wouldn't think that every dead person is a murder victim.  I don't think that every every defeat in an election is due to fraud (I'll include Washington in that one).

I'm the one who supported the recount by the two third party candidates, because it was their legal right.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

[Will F.D. People]

If Ted Kennedy changed his mind about No Child Left Behind, that is his problem. Bush clearly reached out to Kennedy and Kennedy accepted. This counts as Bush reaching out, whether any other poster "likes" it or not.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Ted Kennedy changed his mind about No Child Left Behind, that is his problem. Bush clearly reached out to Kennedy and Kennedy accepted. This counts as Bush reaching out, whether any other poster "likes" it or not.

Ted Kennedy said trusting Bush on NCLB was a mistake.

[J. J.]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

Exceptionally low standard, obviously. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

Exceptionally low standard, obviously. 

Do you ever having anything useful to say, J. Juvenile?

[muon2]

For the record, a solid majority of Democrats present (including the Minority Leader and the lone Independent) joined with the Republicans to defeat the motion to object to the OH electors.

[Andrew]

Clearly, some members of Congress had questions about whether Ohio's electoral votes were "regularly given"--specifically, whether the election (and subsequent recount) in Ohio was held in accordance with all Ohio and federal laws.

Given that they had those questions, it was their duty to object to the votes and to call for a discussion.

They were doing their job.  Anybody who suggests they should have ignored their own doubts just to make the process run more smoothly is not really interested in fair elections.

And for what it's worth, the fact that only Ohio was challenged is absolute, undeniable proof that this was NOT about changing the outcome of the election--even if Ohio's votes had been rejected, Bush would have won, 266-251.  There was no alternate slate to allow, so there would have been only 518 votes cast, and only 260 would have been required to win.  The other states that might conceivably been contested had already been passed over.

[Will F.D. People]

Clearly, some members of Congress had questions about whether Ohio's electoral votes were "regularly given"--specifically, whether the election (and subsequent recount) in Ohio was held in accordance with all Ohio and federal laws.

Given that they had those questions, it was their duty to object to the votes and to call for a discussion.

They were doing their job.  Anybody who suggests they should have ignored their own doubts just to make the process run more smoothly is not really interested in fair elections.

And for what it's worth, the fact that only Ohio was challenged is absolute, undeniable proof that this was NOT about changing the outcome of the election--even if Ohio's votes had been rejected, Bush would have won, 266-251.  There was no alternate slate to allow, so there would have been only 518 votes cast, and only 260 would have been required to win.  The other states that might conceivably been contested had already been passed over.

Here is a problem with the idea of challenging Ohio on the basis that the votes were not "regularly given".

If there were discrepancies in the way the election was held compared to the law, it seriously looks to me like the discrepancies were minor, isolated, and had no bearing on the outcome of the election. To me, there simply is not enough to warrant a challenge.

If we accept that any violation of election law no matter how small or inconsequential to the outcome is allowed to be the basis for a challenge, we are opening up a Pandora's box that I think the country can ill afford. For instance, in my state there is a law that says campaign signs can be no closer than something like 50 feet from the entrance of a polling place. Suppose by accident some precinct measures wrong and allows signs 45 feet from the entrance. Now we have an illegal election, which by today's precedent and by the quoted argument, would be fair game for being challenged in the Joint Session. This can only lead to disaster.

In fact, what may happen is election workers will intentionally violate inconsequential parts of the law just to create grounds to challenge the election later.

In my view the challengers in Congress were derelict in their duty to the country. They were willing to undermine the entire democratic process in order to attempt to make political points. That is just awful. If there are ways to make the election process better, risking our democratic underpinnings to do it is irresponsible. There is a better place and time to make their point.


Now had Ohio's votes actually been thrown out, I don't agree that this would have simply reduced the number of appointed electors. I think it would have thrown the election to the House.

[agcatter]

Quit whining fern.  Your candidate got beat.  End of story.  Your crybaby whining on this board day after day is pathetic.

[J. J.]

Yeah, I have no mathematical skills, right.  Hahahahaha.

I'm glad you realize you are mathematically challenged.  If it will help I will be happy to explain to you how subtration works

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that democrates are flipfloppers?  Oh my!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is fairly to tell that you went to a school system where there was no testing at all.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm in grad school.

Exceptionally low standard, obviously. 

Do you ever having anything useful to say, J. Juvenile?

Yes jFRAUD, that even John Kerry, and his lawyers found nothing.  I have no problem with looking, but there needs to be proof.  I've said the same thing, repeatedly, about Washington.

[J. J.]

Quit whining fern.  Your candidate got beat.  End of story.  Your crybaby whining on this board day after day is pathetic.

The problems with jFRAUD is that he is too immature to understand this.  He does even read the links he sites.

Ironically, even the Congress members today, who raised the Ohio issue (again the Loony Left) said that the did it not to challenge the results, but to call attention to what the preceived as voting problems, e.g. long lines.

There were very long lines at my polling place at 7:00 AM on Election Day, largely because a pretty sizable percent of the voters showed up at the same time.  When I voted at about 2:15 PM, I was the only voter at the polls; somebody else came in as I was voting.  This is the kind of problem the Loony Left, like j FRAUD, of the party complain about when they complain.

I would use the words "Loony Left" to describe this branch.  It doesn't represent the Congressional Democratic leadership here or Kerry himself, just the fringe group.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Quit whining fern.  Your candidate got beat.  End of story.  Your crybaby whining on this board day after day is pathetic.

The problems with jFRAUD is that he is too immature to understand this.  He does even read the links he sites.

Ironically, even the Congress members today, who raised the Ohio issue (again the Loony Left) said that the did it not to challenge the results, but to call attention to what the preceived as voting problems, e.g. long lines.

There were very long lines at my polling place at 7:00 AM on Election Day, largely because a pretty sizable percent of the voters showed up at the same time.  When I voted at about 2:15 PM, I was the only voter at the polls; somebody else came in as I was voting.  This is the kind of problem the Loony Left, like j FRAUD, of the party complain about when they complain.

I would use the words "Loony Left" to describe this branch.  It doesn't represent the Congressional Democratic leadership here or Kerry himself, just the fringe group.

Pollworkers per voter were higher in minority areas.

[A18]

Um, so? If you're legally able to vote, you won't have any problems with pollworkers.

[J. J.]

Pollworkers per voter were higher in minority areas.

Actually, this isn't the issue.  A voter spends very little time with the poll worker.  It's the time that voter spends in the booth voting that tends to be most time consuming part.

Further, if OH is anything like PA was, there were a large number of volunteers informing voters of their rights regarding voting.  When I voted, and when I drove past other polls, these volunteers outnumbered the voters.  You could tell from their tee shirts.

The Loony Left, like jFRAUD, seems to want to be able to tell voters at what time of day to vote.

[Andrew]

If there were discrepancies in the way the election was held compared to the law, it seriously looks to me like the discrepancies were minor, isolated, and had no bearing on the outcome of the election. To me, there simply is not enough to warrant a challenge.

That's a matter of opinion; obviously, some members of Congress disagree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anyone actually believed that, we probably would have seen 51 challenges today, rather than one.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This hasn't been a problem in local elections where small margins are common; there is no reason to suspect it will become a problem in Presidential elections.  Even if it were, it is reasonable for us to expect our Representatives and Senators to do their jobs, and to actually debate and consider any challenges to electoral votes.  As long as they
do this, frivolous challenges based on minor events will not result in overturning any elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They undermined nothing.  They followed the Constitutionally prescribed method of challenging questionable electoral votes.  They forced a discussion of voting problems that have been largely ignored.  We will see a number of election-reform proposals come from the 109th Congress.

Here's a guess:  Election-reform bills will be, for the most part, blocked by the Republicans in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that this was not only the best time to make their point, I think it was the ONLY time they would be able to get any media attention at all for the election-reform issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a matter of interpretation; you may be correct.  Of course, those making the challenge knew, as you and I both know, that Bush would win any election sent to the House.  There was no chance of any Republican-controlled delegation voting against him.  So my claim stands:  this was NOT an effort to take the election from George W. Bush.  It was an effort to shine a light on the numerous problems with our election system--problems which were most evident in Ohio.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Um, so? If you're legally able to vote, you won't have any problems with pollworkers.

If you're in a 10 hour long line, you might have a problem with the lack of them and/or voting machines.

[Andrew]

Two hours in Congress is an outrageous delay.

Ten hours in Ohio is not even worth talking about.

[agcatter]

I wish we could have had a fair election.   Like, say, the election in Washington.  LOL

Yeah, Democrats are only interested in having a fair election process.  Yeah, that's it.

Maybe Dems can get those King County election officials to run the Ohio vote in 2008.  That would insure an accurate count for sure - in the tradition of Mayor Daley and Duval County, Texas.  Dems have ALWAYS just been interested in a fair and accurate counting of every vote.

Bunch of phonies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wish we could have had a fair election.   Like, say, the election in Washington.  LOL

Yeah, Democrats are only interested in having a fair election process.  Yeah, that's it.

Maybe Dems can get those King County election officials to run the Ohio vote in 2008.  That would insure an accurate count for sure - in the tradition of Mayor Daley and Duval County, Texas.  Dems have ALWAYS just been interested in a fair and accurate counting of every vote.

Bunch of phonies.

Q: What do Florida 2000, Ohio 2004, and Washington 2004 all have in common?

A: They were all certified by a Republican secretary of state

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Democrats had just wanted to be obstructionists, they would have challenged Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, and so on.

[J. J.]

If the Democrats had just wanted to be obstructionists, they would have challenged Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, and so on.

They were not doing it, by their own admission, because they doubted the vote result.  That was made clear.

Now, if they want to talk about increased funding for localities to increase voting capacity, that's different. 

They are still going to have problems if all the voters in the district decide to vote at the same time.  You are not going to be able to legislate that.

[agcatter]

That's it genius.  The Washington Secretary of State "found" all those votes in Democratic King County and turned the election - for the Democratic candidate.

Ohio?  There was a 118 ing thousand vote difference.  All 88 counties are run by bipartisan election boards, each with an equal number of Democratic and Republican members serving on those boards.  Those boards certified the results in each of those counties.  You and Boxer need to share a padded cell together.

Oh, and of course no Democratic wingnut can have a discussion without bringing up Florida.  One last time.  The NY Times, CNN, and the AP all did independent studies of the Florida ballots.  All concluded that Bush got more votes.  Vorlon has pointed this out numerous times in the past.  Maybe you think that the NY Times is part of a right wing election coverup.  Yeah, that's it.  They and CNN are puppets of the Bush Administration.

You seem determined to make sure that facts don't get in the way of a good story.  Except, it's not even a good story anymore.  It's gotten beyond comedy.  

The whining Democrats have become an absolute national joke.  If you don't win it's either because 1) the election was "stolen" or 2) because the voters are "stupid".

And you wingnuts can't understand why the voters don't trust you to run any part of the national government?  

You guys used to be entertaining.  Now, you're just pathetic.

[Will F.D. People]

Two hours in Congress is an outrageous delay.

Ten hours in Ohio is not even worth talking about.

By the way, how many long lines are being alleged occurred in Ohio? I saw 1 on TV.

As we learned in another topic in the forum, Ohio has a law that there can be no more than 1400 voters per precinct. If the line is so long that it scares away even the ridiculously high number of one-half of the precincts voters, were are talking about 700 scared away voters per long line.

If every single one of these scared away voters would have voted for Kerry, we would need almost 200 long lines to have enough discouraged voters to make a difference. I am pretty sure that if there were actually 200 long lines, we would have seen more than 1 of them on TV.

And even if the line is long, so what? I was willing to wait for as long as it took for my 30 seconds of filing by RWR's coffin last year. The fact that it took me only 3 hours was a bonus. If voting is such a sacred right and all that, stand in the d*** line to exercise it.

[Will F.D. People]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anyone actually believed that, we probably would have seen 51 challenges today, rather than one.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This hasn't been a problem in local elections where small margins are common; there is no reason to suspect it will become a problem in Presidential elections.  Even if it were, it is reasonable for us to expect our Representatives and Senators to do their jobs, and to actually debate and consider any challenges to electoral votes.  As long as they
do this, frivolous challenges based on minor events will not result in overturning any elections.

Before the challenge in Congress, I would have agreed with you. Your post really makes my case for me -- it lays out the POLITICAL reason that the challenge was made. I do not think it was in good faith to  disrupt the system for a political point. This breach of good faith sets a bad precedent for future challenges based not on uncertainty of the election result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They undermined nothing.  They followed the Constitutionally prescribed method of challenging questionable electoral votes.  They forced a discussion of voting problems that have been largely ignored.  We will see a number of election-reform proposals come from the 109th Congress.
[/quote]

Not true. There is no constitutionally prescribed method of challenging electoral votes, questionable or otherwise. (And the challengers admit the votes were not even questionable). The challengers acted in accordance with US Code, not the Constitution. The law they used was passed in the wake of the Hayes/Tilden dispute in the 1870s. Congress took it upon themselves to devise a method to handle cases where there was a disupte over a states electoral votes.

If the objection had been sustained, I would hope that Ohio would take the matter to the Supreme Court and let it determe if Congress had the power to reject the duly certified results submitted by a sovreign state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, the GOP did not block HAVA. Second, one man's reform is another man's complication. I heard one of the challengers (Jesse Jackson Jr.) say that we needed a standard nationwide voting system. I think this would create more problems that it would solve, and perhaps the GOP would agree with me and block that. I would prefer for each state to look at the experiences of the other states and come up with their own solution as opposed to have Washington bureaucrats decide what system is best for every precinct in the country.