Mississippi 2015 Megathread

[BigSkyBob]

Either the losing candidate has a right to challenge an election in Mississippi, or they don't. The Mississippi Constitution states that they do, and, lays out the process for launching a challenge. The process presumes that some official results may in fact be "unfair."  There is nothing "undignified" in launching a challenge to a close election.

[BigSkyBob]

Either the losing candidate has a right to challenge an election in Mississippi, or they don't. The Mississippi Constitution states that they do, and, lays out the process for launching a challenge. The process presumes that some official results may in fact be "unfair."  There is nothing "undignified" in launching a challenge to a close election.

He (Tullos) agreed to the procedure (drawing straws), which becomes useless if, after correctly held, he may appeal his loss to partisan voting in legislature to overturn it. What for do you need such procedure if you can ignore it's results?

Still an idiot...

Your entire "argument" is based on the strawman assumption that Tullus is contesting the random draw. He is contesting the election. If my understanding is correct, he is contesting how votes were counted after election night. Specifically, with four disputed ballots to be counted he was leading by five votes. Somehow, another vote was found. Had Tullus lost by one vote, rather than by a random draw, no one would have claimed it was untowards for him launch a challenge. Are you suggesting that an exact tie is the one outcome not subject to an election challenge?

Now, rightly or wrongly, the Constitution of the United States of America gives the final say on election challenges to House elections to the House and Senate elections to the Senate. A Senate election was thrown out for a new election, once. And, an apparent Republican winner was unseated once in the House. I would note that in the last case the vote to unseat the Republican was along partisan lines.

Similarly, the Constitution of Mississippi gives each chamber the final say over election challenges. That's the system. If you don't like it, advocate changing the system for the next election. Good luck changing the Constitution to change the rules for federal elections. Sure, Republicans hold a majority of seats. Are you suggesting only members of the smaller party are entitled to launch election challenges?

[BigSkyBob]

^ As i already said - i either don't agree to procedure, which determines a winner (a straw draw in this case) and don't take part into it, or (if i agreed) - agree with procedure's result (in this case - Eaton's win by straw drop. Finish. To agree to procedure and, simultaneously, refuse to abide to it's result is an idiocy to me. It was an idiocy, it is an idiocy and it always be an idiocy to me.

But, what you are claiming is simply a strawman, that is very well stuffed with straw I might add.  "Agreeing to the procedure" is following the process laid out in the rules.  We are a nation of laws. Mississippi law states that if after the official count the election is tied the two candidates shall draw lots. Both candidates simply followed election law. Mississippi law indicates that after the election is over, in this case after the drawing of lots, the loosing candidate may challenge the election.

What you are saying is akin to claiming that if someone signs a traffic citation he has forfeited his right to fight it.

Now, as fair as I know, one of the potential subjects of challenge is the drawing of lots itself. I suppose, the loosing candidate could claim the process was rigged. At that point, such a challenge would be decided by the whole House. But, that isn't what has happened in this case. The Republican's basic claim is that he in fact had received more votes and was therefore the winner of the election. If the House finds his argument meritorious, and, if the election count had followed the procedure suggested by the determination of the House no drawing of straws would ever have occurred. Now, it would be clearer if Mississippi law allowed for challenges to be decided before the drawing of lots, but, it simply doesn't.

I would point out that the Republican candidate respected the process while the Democratic candidate wanted a new election rather than a drawing of lots. Are you suggesting the fact that he showed up for the drawing of lots meant he forfeited any objection to a challenge?

[BigSkyBob]

Are you suggesting the fact that he showed up for the drawing of lots meant he forfeited any objection to a challenge?

Exactly. If i agree on procedure - i abide by it's result. Otherwise - i don't agree to procedure. It's all THAT simple for me - strawman... If i would lose a draw - i would drop any objections. I could bitch MYSELF of being unlucky, but that's all...

Again, you are arguing that if one signs a traffic citation one forfeit's one's right to fight the ticket. Signing the ticket is the process. If anything, rejecting the process forfeits all rights to object to the outcome of the process.

Mississippi law demanded that both candidates attend the draw, so they did. The Democrat didn't want to attend. He wanted a rerun of the election. The Republican, I suspect, wanted his challenge ruled upon before the draw. Neither gentleman had a choice in the matter. As an empirical matter, if both candidates refused to attend, the drawing still would have taken place. As lawmakers standing for election to an office that writes laws that others are expected to obey, both gentlemen had a moral obligation to follow election law. Mississippi election law called for a drawing of lots. Mississippi election law also states the loosing candidate has a right to contest an election.

There simply isn't a moral argument for saying a tied election is one outcome that cannot be challenged.

[BigSkyBob]

^ Well, i understood situation right since your first post, and understand it now too. But - personally for ME moral side still prevails. Let's end the talk on this and see how it turns out... Thanks!

There is simply no there there to your "moral case."  The moral thing to do is respect all existing laws if one wishes to stand for an office that pass laws others are expected to obey. Obeying one law doesn't, and morally shouldn't, negate the rights one has under a different law. There simply isn't a moral case for saying an exact tie in Mississippi is the one election outcome that cannot be challenged.

[BigSkyBob]

^ Well, i understood situation right since your first post, and understand it now too. But - personally for ME moral side still prevails. Let's end the talk on this and see how it turns out... Thanks!

Don't bother feeding the troll.

In an update, it has been reported that one of the voters in the disputed election was the Democratic candidate's brother. He lives outside the district. Somehow, posters here have claimed that the Republican candidate has forfeited his moral right to object to voting fraud for reasons that, fundamentally, remain unspecified.

[BigSkyBob]

^ Well, i understood situation right since your first post, and understand it now too. But - personally for ME moral side still prevails. Let's end the talk on this and see how it turns out... Thanks!

Don't bother feeding the troll.

In an update, it has been reported that one of the voters in the disputed election was the Democratic candidate's brother. He lives outside the district. Somehow, posters here have claimed that the Republican candidate has forfeited his moral right to object to voting fraud for reasons that, fundamentally, remain unspecified.

FWIW - it was the GOP's candidate's brother not the Dem.

Trolls don't care about their "information" being correct, they care only about "achieving their purpose"...

I stand correct. The truth matters, so you last statement is yet another strawman.

Correcting the record, the Democrat's objection is that the Republican's brother may have voted illegally, and that he believes the Republican majority might be unfair to him, while Republican's objection is that was that he was leading by six votes with four disputed ballots, until rejected ballots were counted.

In light of my correction, I would note that if the Republican won the draw, and the his brother was determined to have illegally voted for him, with no other error discovered, the Democrat, not the Republican, ought to have been seated. The forum is rife with rank partisan hypocrisy, but, that is not an excuse to presume that I am similarly inclined.

Further, supposing one of the Republican's votes is stricken, and one of the Democrat's vote is stricken, resulted again in a tie, the Democrat ought to be seated, because he won the draw, which is how Mississippi election law states how tied elections are to be settled.

The only "moral argument" against an election challenge would be if before the draw both the Democratic, and Republican candidates agreed to drop any potential challenges, and abide by the results of the draw. The Democrat wanted a rerun, while the Republican wanted a challenged. Any other "moral argument," including the one offered, is specious.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob,   f**k off (i am really tired discussing all this here))))... Are you satisfied now?))))

The basic facts are that you accused me of being a "troll" and claimed that I was arguing in bad faith ["Trolls don't care about their 'information' being correct, they care only about 'achieving their purpose'..."] I consider both accusation, which are highly personal, to be profoundly untrue. I believe what I say, and say what I believe. I strive for accuracy. And, whether you accept it or not, I believe in democracy. One of the necessary tenant of democracy is that the candidate who received the most lawfully cast votes  must be declared the winner.

After launching a personal attack,  you responded to my attempts at rebuttal by saying "f@@k off" and claiming you "don't want discuss it here." You then asked if I was "satisfied?" Why should I be satisfied?

Going back to the election,  I find it unlikely that had the clerks conducting the count had been keen on the Republican winning, I highly doubt any rejected ballots would have been reconsidered. Instead, he, or she, would have left that to a challenge. I find a process were rules are made up ad hoc depending on the partisan preferences of those doing the counting to be highly unfair. If this election isn't morally the subject of a challenge, how could anyone claim any election challenge in any circumstance is not "moral?" I simply don't see any there there in your "moral argument."

[BigSkyBob]

Well, those who can't lose with dignity, appeal to partisanship. The last retreat of scoundrels, as one writer said..

As you can read here,


http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/11/30/house-committee-set-election/76558978/


that is what Tullos is accusing Eaton of doing. Specifically, Tullos is claiming that that after the ballots were counted, commissioners in Smith County held a secret meeting, and, counted nine previously rejected ballots. That is simply not the procedure typically used in such a close election. Typically, a public meeting is held in which it is decided whether, or not, to reconsider ballots. Then, if the decision is made to reexamine ballots, a date and place is set where the ballots can be reexamined in front of observers from both campaigns.

The process used reeked of partisanship. If the same commissioners were keen on Tullos winning, they would not have reconsidered any ballots. If that isn't a legitimate basis for an election challenge, what is the point of having election challenges? The election was so close that only one documented error could change the outcome, and, the process used in the revised initial count was highly irregular, and seemly partisan.

I would note the article explicitly notes,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note, that Tullos never agreed to abide by the drawing of straws, and, that he had filed a challenge before the drawing. Your "moral argument" was underpinned by assumptions that simply had no factual basis.

[BigSkyBob]

Tullos wins.

http://wjtv.com/2016/01/20/panel-seat-gops-tullos-in-disputed-mississippi-house-race/

[BigSkyBob]

Tullos wins.

http://wjtv.com/2016/01/20/panel-seat-gops-tullos-in-disputed-mississippi-house-race/

This is just a committee. It still needs a vote by the full house to become official.

It was official:

http://www.wapt.com/news/mississippi/miss-house-declares-gop-challenger-winner-of-contested-race/37548010

[BigSkyBob]

Tullos wins.

http://wjtv.com/2016/01/20/panel-seat-gops-tullos-in-disputed-mississippi-house-race/

This is just a committee. It still needs a vote by the full house to become official.

Expected. 2 seated Democrats would clearly be "too much" for Republican-dominated legislature...

Tullos had a legitimate concern, and, it was validated. In the Senate, the Democrat was declared the winner. If "partisanship" was the driving factor, why didn't the Republicans take both seats?

[BigSkyBob]

Tullos wins.

http://wjtv.com/2016/01/20/panel-seat-gops-tullos-in-disputed-mississippi-house-race/

This is just a committee. It still needs a vote by the full house to become official.

Expected. 2 seated Democrats would clearly be "too much" for Republican-dominated legislature...

Tullos had a legitimate concern, and, it was validated. In the Senate, the Democrat was declared the winner. If "partisanship" was the driving factor, why didn't the Republicans take both seats?

Simply"saved their face" - to seat both would be too naughty. Seating only one made them look objective. In addition - an idiot Sojourner was heavily disliked by many Republicans too....

Did it ever occur to you that Sojourner lost because her case was not persuasive, while Tullos' case was?