Florida 13

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

[RBH]

http://www.srqelections.com/results/gen2006pct.htm

precinct results from the first 5 precincts

114 undervotes/973 votes
82 undervotes/832 votes
69 undervotes/558 votes
98 undervotes/1052 votes
52 undervotes/532 votes

Clearly there's nothing to see here, and if we insist on looking into this matter, then Sean Hannity will yell at us.

So let's just assume that Buchanan would win before Hannity uses the belt.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm just saying what I think, that's all.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There were obviously severe problems with the electoral process, and the right and ethical thing to do would be to hold a new election.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think that, whatever the issue about supression/loss of votes is, if every vote cast was counted Christine Jennings would be elected. 

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

Thank you for your fairness.

[Deano963]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

It's bad enough that many of the republicans on this forum hate democracy, but having this idotic crapped spewed by a Democrat? Depressing.

[Verily]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

It's just Jennings, not the party. In any case, even if Jennings won, shouldn't we want to actually see the results of the election? Or do those ~300 people whose votes could be counted and Buchanan still wins not matter?

[7,052,770]

This was a legitimate voting irregularly that must be solved fairly, and the only way to do that that I can think of is to hold a new election.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

It's bad enough that many of the republicans on this forum hate democracy, but having this idotic crapped spewed by a Democrat? Depressing.

Rats you're on to me!  I've always hated democracy, boy did you nail me; gosh you sure are sharp today

[Sam Spade]

Hmmm...  I looked at the ballot.  Simply put, the obvious explanation is that people didn't notice the second page.  It was Sarasota County's version of the butterfly ballot.

There has been no proof that votes were purposely not counted.  Statistics is not proof of this; fairness is not proof of this, etc.

If people lack the ability to fill out a ballot properly, the Constitution should not protect that.  Nor should the voting process.  Neither should be concerned with such trivialities.

A revote would not be more fair and just to anyone.  It is unlikely that the same number of people or the same people would turn out in the revote.  Anyone who voted in the general election and failed to vote in the revote would be disenfranchised.  For that we would have actual proof, not statistics and hearsay.

Furthermore, I agree with those who say we should have paper records of electronic voting machines.  However, this would have to be tightly policed.

I would propose that those citizens who notice a mistake has been made during voting hours should be allowed to change their vote, but that those who notice after voting hours are stuck the way it is.  This would prevent voting fraud (people trying to change close results after the votes are in - I meant to vote for X) and encourage civic responsibility - to make sure you check your vote afterwards to make sure it's correct.  Of course, if you want to check if your paper record matches the precinct's for a certain period afterwards, that would be fine too.  But no changes.

There's my spiel.  Have at it.

[Beet]

Well I have no opinion on whether a re-vote should be held or whatever, although based on the content of the missing votes it seems extremely likely that Jennings would have won.

Where I really disagree with Sam Spade is that fairness of the ballot and minimizing error in people's voting is extremely important. This is at the very center of the purpose of the voting process, and to dismiss these concerns as trivialities are to dismiss popular elections altogether. One's mechanical ability to fill out a ballot is no measure of the worth of one's opinion. There are many circumstances other than purposeful miscounting of ballots that could turn the election process into a catastrophic failure.

[Sam Spade]

Well I have no opinion on whether a re-vote should be held or whatever, although based on the content of the missing votes it seems extremely likely that Jennings would have won.

Where I really disagree with Sam Spade is that fairness of the ballot and minimizing error in people's voting is extremely important. This is at the very center of the purpose of the voting process, and to dismiss these concerns as trivialities are to dismiss popular elections altogether. One's mechanical ability to fill out a ballot is no measure of the worth of one's opinion. There are many circumstances other than purposeful miscounting of ballots that could turn the election process into a catastrophic failure.

Beet, where you're wrong is in presuming that I don't think that fairness of the ballot and minimizing error in people's voting is extremely important.  I certainly do; in fact if I were running things, I would make sure all ballots were clearly designed, easy to maneuver and plain to everyone.  I would probably also try to figure out some way to eliminate the strategic placement of parties, but that might be difficult.  This was clearly a case of a ballot that did not fill any of these specifications, really. 

As I'm sure you're aware of, the Constitution has never really offered any protection for these types of issues; in earlier years there were no protections at all for the right to vote. (not a Constitutional issue)

However, where many here would disagree with me is that I am:
1) totally in opposition to changing the rules after a vote. (not fair)
2) totally in opposition to revotes in general. (not fair)
3) totally in opposition to having protections and special rules for people who can't read ballots properly. (not fair)

I do support the paper receipt (for computers)/ballot system, and I think that my solution is the best way to balance concerns of fraud and the need for civic responsibility, along with the competing concerns of making sure one's vote is correct and having a record to keep afterwards in case the race is extremely close.

I think these are the best solutions to meeting a standard of "fair voting", while guarding against other concerns.

Minimizing error, in my mind, is best achieved pre-voting.  During voting, I think my proposal is the best at offering a comprehensive solution.  After voting, the lines often become blurred between error and fraud, and it is probably fruitless to correct at this point.

[Deano963]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

It's bad enough that many of the republicans on this forum hate democracy, but having this idotic crapped spewed by a Democrat? Depressing.

Rats you're on to me!  I've always hated democracy, boy did you nail me; gosh you sure are sharp today

You should try learning the facts about a race before you condemn Jennings or the entire Democratic Party of simply having sour grapes. There are legitimate and valid questions regarding the 18,000 missing votes in the election. This is not simply someone trying to steal an election, and people who propagate that myth like yourself are only compounding the problem. I read today that yesterday in the trial an MIT elections professor testified that if those votes had been cast and/or counted Jennings would have won by 3,100 votes. I'll take an MIT professor's opinion over yours, thank you. And if this is truly just a case of "your party trying to drag this out as long as possible" as you so brilliantly put it, why are'nt they doing the same thing in NC-08, where the vote margin was just as close??

I'll tell you why - b/c there were NO reports of widespread voting problems, OR of machines not registering votes, OR undervotes OR sh**tty ballot design in that district's election. In other words, the Democrats lost that race fairly, so even though the margin was extremely close they are not contesting the results.

Your ignorance and lack of a research about this topic which you started a thread about is what is truly depressing.

And where did you come up witht hat 200-250 votes figure? How could you possibly know that?

[Beet]

Well I have no opinion on whether a re-vote should be held or whatever, although based on the content of the missing votes it seems extremely likely that Jennings would have won.

Where I really disagree with Sam Spade is that fairness of the ballot and minimizing error in people's voting is extremely important. This is at the very center of the purpose of the voting process, and to dismiss these concerns as trivialities are to dismiss popular elections altogether. One's mechanical ability to fill out a ballot is no measure of the worth of one's opinion. There are many circumstances other than purposeful miscounting of ballots that could turn the election process into a catastrophic failure.

Beet, where you're wrong is in presuming that I don't think that fairness of the ballot and minimizing error in people's voting is extremely important.  I certainly do; in fact if I were running things, I would make sure all ballots were clearly designed, easy to maneuver and plain to everyone.  I would probably also try to figure out some way to eliminate the strategic placement of parties, but that might be difficult.  This was clearly a case of a ballot that did not fill any of these specifications, really. 

As I'm sure you're aware of, the Constitution has never really offered any protection for these types of issues; in earlier years there were no protections at all for the right to vote. (not a Constitutional issue)

However, where many here would disagree with me is that I am:
1) totally in opposition to changing the rules after a vote. (not fair)
2) totally in opposition to revotes in general. (not fair)
3) totally in opposition to having protections and special rules for people who can't read ballots properly. (not fair)

I do support the paper receipt (for computers)/ballot system, and I think that my solution is the best way to balance concerns of fraud and the need for civic responsibility, along with the competing concerns of making sure one's vote is correct and having a record to keep afterwards in case the race is extremely close.

I think these are the best solutions to meeting a standard of "fair voting", while guarding against other concerns.

Minimizing error, in my mind, is best achieved pre-voting.  During voting, I think my proposal is the best at offering a comprehensive solution.  After voting, the lines often become blurred between error and fraud, and it is probably fruitless to correct at this point.

I can agree with that, Sam Spade, especially #1 and #2. It sounded like you were saying something very different in your earlier post, though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I honestly believe that the Republican, Vern Buchanan, won (though it was probably more like 250-200 votes) and I feel it is wrong that my party is trying to drag this out as long as possible with the hope that it will be decided my the Democratic congress.  Not that my views on this matter

It's bad enough that many of the republicans on this forum hate democracy, but having this idotic crapped spewed by a Democrat? Depressing.

Rats you're on to me!  I've always hated democracy, boy did you nail me; gosh you sure are sharp today

You should try learning the facts about a race before you condemn Jennings or the entire Democratic Party of simply having sour grapes. There are legitimate and valid questions regarding the 18,000 missing votes in the election. This is not simply someone trying to steal an election, and people who propagate that myth like yourself are only compounding the problem. I read today that yesterday in the trial an MIT elections professor testified that if those votes had been cast and/or counted Jennings would have won by 3,100 votes. I'll take an MIT professor's opinion over yours, thank you. And if this is truly just a case of "your party trying to drag this out as long as possible" as you so brilliantly put it, why are'nt they doing the same thing in NC-08, where the vote margin was just as close??

I'll tell you why - b/c there were NO reports of widespread voting problems, OR of machines not registering votes, OR undervotes OR sh**tty ballot design in that district's election. In other words, the Democrats lost that race fairly, so even though the margin was extremely close they are not contesting the results.

Your ignorance and lack of a research about this topic which you started a thread about is what is truly depressing.

And where did you come up witht hat 200-250 votes figure? How could you possibly know that?

First off, I am simply giving my opinion and unlike you I never showed immense disrespect towards those who disagree with me.  I have been wrong before, and I may be wrong now.  I said "MY party" (because I am a Democrat, I just try to be fair )  You have a valid point with NC 8th!  200-250 votes was just a guess (I do think there were small problems, but not enough to change the outcome).  I also agree with Sam's post that a paper trail should be requiered and you would automatically disinfranchise some people in a revote.

[Deano963]

  200-250 votes was just a guess (I do think there were small problems, but not enough to change the outcome).

 

OK but how do you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't affect the outcome? 18,000 votes in a race decided by less than 400 is not a small problem IMHO.
 

I also agree with Sam's post that a paper trail should be requiered and you would automatically disinfranchise some people in a revote.

What about all the voters who are disenfranchised if a revote is not held? There's nothing stopping those people from voting again. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and vote, my view is that their opinion dosen't matter. That's a crap argument in my opinion. There are far worse things in the world then having to (GASP!) vote twice to resolve an election where there were massive problems. People in some parts of the world would kill for that right.

[Nutmeg]

By the way, why is "former" abbreviated as "ffmr."?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

  200-250 votes was just a guess (I do think there were small problems, but not enough to change the outcome).

 

OK but how do you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't affect the outcome? 18,000 votes in a race decided by less than 400 is not a small problem IMHO.
 

I also agree with Sam's post that a paper trail should be requiered and you would automatically disinfranchise some people in a revote.

What about all the voters who are disenfranchised if a revote is not held? There's nothing stopping those people from voting again. If someone is too lazy to get off their ass and vote, my view is that their opinion dosen't matter. That's a crap argument in my opinion. There are far worse things in the world then having to (GASP!) vote twice to resolve an election where there were massive problems. People in some parts of the world would kill for that right.

So should your views be irrelevent because you cannot debate this topic without swearing (that is much easier than voting twice)?

[HardRCafé]

So should your views be irrelevent because you cannot debate this topic without swearing

Or any other.