Ohio challenge

[Andrew]

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 disagree.  I think it would "make a difference" if even one voter had to leave because--whether through incompetence or by design--there were not sufficient machines available to handle the number of voters trying to vote.  And if this is more likely to happen in the areas where people have less money, or more skin pigment, or both, then it makes a BIG difference.

Voters didn't get "scared away", by the way.  A voter might have to leave because they risk losing their jobs or because they can't take a chance that their babysitter might not be able to stay at their home, or because they literally can not afford to give up a few hours pay.  Don't minimize other people's difficulties just because you don't share them.

[Andrew]

There is no constitutionally prescribed method of challenging electoral votes, questionable or otherwise.

You are correct.  I meant "legally" rather than "Constitutionally"--my mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Stephanie Tubbs Jones said that, "This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning or challenging the victory of the President," not that the votes were not questionable. 

In fact, her opening statement was, "I . . . object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.

[dazzleman]

So now the Democrats want to mount legal challenges to any election they do not win.

Why did they pick Ohio to challenge?  There were other states, such as Iowa, that were much closer.  Could it be that those other states would not have provided the margin of victory.

The types of election irregularities described in Ohio occur in every election, and in various places around the country.  I have heard nightmare stories about voting in New York City.  Hours long waits, names not appearing on registration lists, etc.  Sounds like voter suppression to me.  And in New York, ancient mechanical lever machines that produce no paper trail are used.  The machine could fail to record any votes and nobody would know until the end of the day when the machine was opened.

Are the Democrats concerned about the integrity of New York City elections?  No, because NYC elections usually produce the results that they want.  If they're so concerned about these issues, why aren't they challenging the New York results, or maybe the Illinois results, given the history of blatant voter fraud in Chicago.  I haven't heard a word of concern about any of this from the Democrats.  I can't imagine why not, if they're so concerned about the integrity of the voting process.

The Democrats, frustrated by their recent losses, have advanced into playing a very ugly game of claiming that voters likely to support them are being denied the franchise any time they get an election result that they don't like.  By raising the spectre of egregious abuses of voting rights in the pre-civil rights era, and equating what is mostly incompetent governmental adminstration (usually controlled by the Democrats themselves, as we saw in Palm Beach County, FL) with such abuses, they have cheapened the reality of past abuses and the sacrifices that were made to end them.

What will this do for Democrats in future elections?  Florida may provide a clue.  After the 2000 debacle there, and the vows by the Democrats to get even for their loss, Jeb Bush won by a landslide in the 2002 governor's race, and George W. Bush won the state by a comfortable margin in 2002.  Let's hope the Democrats keep up their current behavior.

[agcatter]

Fear not.  They will.

Enjoyable to watch their meltdown after every election.  And, they can't figure out why the electorate won't put them back in power.

[KEmperor]

Hey, I like those lever machines!

[J. J.]

Fear not.  They will.

Enjoyable to watch their meltdown after every election.  And, they can't figure out why the electorate won't put them back in power.

Please, let them claim fraud where ther is none and let the LoonyLeft speak for the pae party.  We'll still have a two party system in 20 years, Republicans and Libertarians.

At least kerry and the Democratic Congressional leaderhip has the good sense not to be invoved.

[dazzleman]

Fear not.  They will.

Enjoyable to watch their meltdown after every election.  And, they can't figure out why the electorate won't put them back in power.

Please, let them claim fraud where ther is none and let the LoonyLeft speak for the pae party.  We'll still have a two party system in 20 years, Republicans and Libertarians.

At least kerry and the Democratic Congressional leaderhip has the good sense not to be invoved.

I gained a lot of respect for Kerry as a result of his refusal to engage in this Gore-like behavior and his graceful concession to Bush.

His VP, John Edwards, came off like a little punk, and he is said to have been in favor of not conceding, and going the Gore route in Ohio, even with a margin of 120,000 votes.  At least Gore was within striking distance.

I have always hated Barbara Boxer, and now I can see that my opinion of her was well founded.

[Moooooo]

So now the Democrats want to mount legal challenges to any election they do not win.

Tell your boy Rossi up in Washington to give it up then.

[dazzleman]

So now the Democrats want to mount legal challenges to any election they do not win.

Tell your boy Rossi up in Washington to give it up then.

I don't necessarily agree with the Rossi challenge.  But 42 votes is not the same thing as 118,000 votes, in any case.  And that is only a gubernatorial election, not a presidential election.

[agcatter]

Yeah, since when does 129 vote lead equate to a 118,000+ election outcome? 

As far as having respect for Kerry not challenging the election, all I can say is wow.  Now the Dems have us complimenting them for not failing to concede when the race isn't even close.  Boy, have they got us conditioned or what?

[dazzleman]

Yeah, since when does 129 vote lead equate to a 118,000+ election outcome? 

As far as having respect for Kerry not challenging the election, all I can say is wow.  Now the Dems have us complimenting them for not failing to concede when the race isn't even close.  Boy, have they got us conditioned or what?

I would have respect for anybody who conceded gracefully once it was clear that he had lost.  Let's not overdo it - I still don't think much of his politics, but give him credit for not acting like a crybaby pu**y, as the Democrats have become accustomed to doing.

[agcatter]

Yeah, but come on.  When you've lost Ohio by (what at the time was) 140,000 votes and Florida by just under 400,000 votes, what the hell else can you do but concede?

[dazzleman]

Yeah, but come on.  When you've lost Ohio by (what at the time was) 140,000 votes and Florida by just under 400,000 votes, what the hell else can you do but concede?

Aside from Al Gore, I can't think of another presidential loser in recent memory who didn't concede gracefully.

I think your main point is largely correct - that we now have such low expectations of Democratic behavior that we are overly impressed if they even behave halfway human.

[J. J.]

So now the Democrats want to mount legal challenges to any election they do not win.

Tell your boy Rossi up in Washington to give it up then.

In case you have not notice, I've been saying he should without proof.  

If some proof surfaces, I may change my opinion.  I can only think of two that were overturned, neither was a governor.

[Moooooo]

Florida by just under 400,000 votes

I still cant get over Florida.  Im not brewing up any conspiracy theories but, god damn.  I dont think anyone saw it being that big of a win for Bush.  What was it in 2000?  Like 400 votes?  400,000 just seems unrealistic to me.  Did Kerry forget about Florida?  To much time in Ohio?

[agcatter]

Al Gore set a horrible example, and it's going to haunt our system forever.  He let the genie out of the bottle.

I keep thinking about Nixon's concession in 60 when there were half a dozen states within several thousand votes, and an out and out theft in Illinois.

[agcatter]

Florida wasn't surprising to me.  A Massachusetts lib was never going to win Florida.

Jeb won re-election by 13 pts two years earlier in a year Dems poured everything they had into trying to embarrass W by beating his brother.

[Andrew]

Yeah, since when does 129 vote lead equate to a 118,000+ election outcome? 

The margin of victory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was fraud.  The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

There are valid reasons to be suspicious of both elections; there are valid reasons to feel confident about both elections.  The margin of victory is really not a factor.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  The margin of victory in the Ukrain was 871,402.  Nobody doubts that that outcome was the result of fraud.

[agcatter]

If I hear one more mention of the Ukraine election in a discussion of the Ohio election results I think I'm going to hurl.  Paleeeez.

One last time.

1) Ohio elections are decentralized.  Each county has an election board which consists of an EQUAL number of Democrats and Republicans.  They oversee the counting of ballots and certification of elecion results for that individual county.

2) There was NO problem with the certification of the election results among the Democrat and Republican commission members serving on those boards.  NONE.  Democratic members on those boards did NOT contest any of the county results - not in Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinatti, anywhere.

3).  The votes were counted and there was then a RECOUNT.  To my knowledge, there has NEVER been a recount in ANY state in ANY presidential election with anything like the spread in Ohio.  Not even close.

4) In the recount, Kerry picked up 300 votes statewide.  That is a pretty good indication that the vote count was on the up and up the first time the votes were counted.

Damn, people.  Facts are stubborn things.  What's it gonna take?  Kerry lost the national popular vote by over 3 million votes.  The Ohio vote was well in line with what happened nationally.

Is this the way it's going to be from now on?  Ohio wasn't even close.  Are we going to have to listen to conspiracy crap from now on after EVERY presidential election?  Is that the way it's going to be?  Because, if it is, it is going to undermine the ability to govern of every president elected from hear on - Democrat or Republican.

You really want that?  Discussion of an Ohio conspiracy needs to be taken to the Democratic Underground site.  If Democrats continue to cry wolf over something as clear cut as Ohio, how will you possibly expect ANYONE to take your protests seriously in the future if there is a REAL problem?  Do Dems not see how this wingnut conspiracy stuff is marginalizing themselves in the eyes of the mainstream?

Last time.  No one stole the 2004 presidential election, and everytime that claim is repeated it only hurts the Democratic Party in the future.

[Andrew]

If I hear one more mention of the Ukraine election in a discussion of the Ohio election results I think I'm going to hurl.  Paleeeez.

I mention the Ukraine because it is relevant to my point:  the margin of victory has nothing to do with whether or not the election was in accordance with the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not particularly surprising that none of the Boards of Election suggested that their county results were problematic, whatever the reason.  Most people don't like to issue public criticisms of themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a recount, and it would have gone a long way toward eliminating any suspicions, if it had actually been done in accordance with Ohio law.  But it wasn't; it was a joke.  The local boards ignored the state's recount provisions, and did everything in their power to avoid counting ballots by hand.  They had an opportunity to put the issue to rest, but they failed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 1960 Presidential election, they did a recount in Hawaii.  A real one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be a very good indication, if they had actually followed Ohio's laws in conducting the recount.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll notice that I have never said Ohio was stolen.  But I have become very frustrated with those who think there are no problems with our election system; and with those who think, without actually considering it, that fraud is not a possibility; with those who think that the margin of victory precludes any discussion of irregularities; and with the Republicans in Congress who, during the debate on Thursday, refused to address the issue of election reform, and instead complained about having their time wasted.

Our election system is a mess.  A huge mess.  And whether or not the Presidency was stolen in 2000, or in 2004, or in 1960, or in 1876, or any other time--it WILL be stolen in some election to come, unless we repair the process.

It bothers me that most Democrats, and virtually all Republicans, don't think election reform is even an issue worth worrying about.

[A18]

The margin in Hawaii was not 120,000 votes!

It wasn't even that this time.

[agcatter]

He knows that.  It was a couple of hundred votes.

Hand recount?  In a state where the margin of victory was 118,000 votes?  You gonna pay for it Andrew? 

Why don't you take a long look at the vote in Ohio in 1976.  Gerald Ford lost the state by what, 11,000 votes?  You didn't see Republicans clammering for a "hand recount" in Ohio and Mississippi.  - Two states which, incidently, were actually close, unlike Ohio 04, and which had enough electors to allow Ford to stay in power.  Of course not.  Nor should they have barring hard evidence of fraud.  The losing party accepted the judgement of the electorate and moved on without whining like little crybabies.

However, we shouldn't be surprised by all the crybaby whining from the modern Democratic Party.  After all, what else would you expect from a party that has become nothing but a coalition of victims?

Nor am I terribly concerned that the wingnuts are "suspicious".  You could have a million handcounts and they'd never be satisfied.  You think a "handcount" would have shut these people up?  Please.  BTW, "handcounts" really cleared things up in Washington, didn't they?  Now they really have a mess on their hands.

Guess you'll just have to just be unhappy, because there is absolutely no shred of evidence that any fraud took place.  None.  Zero.  Whether two minor party candidates who garnered less than one percent between them want a "hand recount" makes no difference to rational people.  The key word here is "rational".  Something the Democratic Party has not been in at least the last four years.  At any rate, kindly cool the crap about the Ukraine.  It hurts an already ridiculous case.

[Andrew]

Hand recount?  In a state where the margin of victory was 118,000 votes?  You gonna pay for it Andrew?

I have never suggested that there should have been a hand recount.  I have said that there should have been a hand recount in the counties where it was required by law.  They were supposed to choose test precincts at random.  After hand-counting the test precincts, they were supposed to machine count them once.  If the counts were different, they were supposed to recount by hand.  If they were still different, they were supposed to count the entire county by hand. 

In practice, the test precincts were pre-selected.  If the hand count and machine count didn't match, they re-sorted the cards and machine counted again and again until they got a match.  If they didn't get a match, they tried again with a different machine.  If they never got a match, they still did the entire count by machine.  This happened in county after county.

They have the laws for a reason.  And if the bill for conducting the recount isn't high enough for your taste, don't blame me or the Greens or the Libertarians.  Blame the Republican and Democratic Ohio legislators who passed the recount law in the first place, and the Republican and Democratic legislators who have failed to adjust it in the years since.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure why the choices made by the Republicans in 1976 are relevant. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bringing up Ohio and Mississippi in 1976 shows that you really don't understand the issue.  The objection to the electoral votes was not about finding a close state or trying to change the outcome of the election.  It was about highlighting a state where there were many irregularities and questions about the conduct of the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem they have there is that they followed the state's recount procedures, and Rossi didn't like the outcome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm unhappy only because most people in our country could not possibly care less about whether our elections are well-run.  Voter intimidation?  Don't care.  No paper trail?  Don't care.  Totals come up different every time we count?  Don't care.    Voters removed from the rolls illegally?  Don't care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll continue to refer to Ukraine as long as you fail to understand that the margin of victory is irrelevant.  I'd also like to remind you that you don't have the authority to tell me what I should and should not say.

[agcatter]

You casually float out terms like "voter intimidation".   Sorry pal.  There wasn't any.  Got any evidence?  Didn't think so.

It's not even a question of hand recounts.  Explain to me on what basis there should be a recount anyway.  While you're at it, how about Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.  Why stop there?  How about Texas, Alabama, South Carolina.  It's only money and your guy didn't win.  Therefore, we MUST keep counting.

Oh, and Washington is not a mess?  It goes a little deeper than "Rossi didn't like the outcome" and you damn well know it.  You must not have been following the story the last 48 hours - a little matter of dead people voting.  Check the Seattle Times.  The fact that you're all bent out of shape about Ohio, but dismiss Washington as simply "Rossi didn't like the outcome" tells me you're just another party hack and just a tad disengenerous about "just wanting to fix the system".  Admit it.  You just didn't like the outcome.  Simple as that.  Outraged about Ohio, but nonchalant about Washington.  Why not be consistant for god's sake if you're really concerned about "fixing the system"?  I think we both know the answer to that one.

I think my point about the comparison of 76 is rather obvious.  Are you trying to say that election should have been contested as well?  Good lord man.

Finally, you bet, Ukraine away.  You're just marginalizing yourself with that kind of dribble.  I suggest you take it to Democratic Underground.com or whatever they call it.  Take Fern with you.  You'll be right at home with the rest of the conspiracy nutcases.

Kerry is history.  You and Barbara Boxer would do well to get over it.

[Andrew]

You casually float out terms like "voter intimidation".   Sorry pal.  There wasn't any.

Of course there was.  There is voter intimidation in every Presidential election.  My complaint was that nobody seems to care.  It gets dismissed with a "both sides do it."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There should be a recount because two of the candidates requested it, as they are allowed to under Ohio law.  Once the recount has been requested, they should follow the law in conducting it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about them?  If you have evidence of significant irregularities there, you should want a recount.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's never been my point; you haven't been paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My comment wasn't really about fraud investigations.  My comment was about Rossi, who was very much opposed to any challenges to the results until he fell behind in the hand recount.  Then, all of a sudden, he wants a re-vote.   He wanted the re-vote as soon as the numbers were against him.  Obviously, if it turns out that there was fraud in the Washington election, then it is more evidence of a broken system in major need of repair.  I'm opposed to bad elections everywhere, regardless of the result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You (and others) have put me in the position of having to defend the Ohio situation; that's why I've been discussing it.  The "outrage" seems to be coming from you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer is that I'm very consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't try to say anything; I didn't even bring it up.  But I'll say now that if one side or the other had suspicions of fraud, then of course it should have been contested.  A close election, however, does not constitute evidence of fraud.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that the margin of victory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was fraud is not dribble.  It's fact.  The Ukraine is a recent and well-known example of that fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think you'll be able to find any posts where I have ever suggested any kind of conspiracy.  I'll take the high road and refrain from calling you any names.  I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is, and has always been, this:  our election system is a mess and needs to be fixed.  I was making that point here, and elsewhere, well before the election.  My point has nothing to do with John Kerry.