Ohio re-count almost done. 86/88 counties done, Kerry picks up 242 votes total

[DanimalBr]

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1103711553253230.xml

I hope the Greens and the Liberterians are happy.  They just stuck the Ohio taxpayers witih a million dollar plus bill for a pointless and time wasting recount that confirms what the entire country has known since November 3rd.   That Bush has won Ohio and thus the election

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How dare every vote be counted in the most important state in the most important election? Those damn people who want to count every valid vote.

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

[Alcon]

Option 3.

Not everyone far-left believes it was stolen. Just the nutcases.

[DanimalBr]

If you want to recount the votes, be my guest.  Count and Count until you're blue in the face for all I care.  But don't ask the hard working tax payers to pick up the bill just cause a bunch of crybaby activists don't like the outcome of the election.  The election is over, Kerry knows it, Bush knows it.  This isn't about counting every vote.  It's abuot doing everything possible to de-legitmatize Bush's win. 

And it's truly disgusting that the taxpayers of Ohio have to pick up the bill.  I wouldn't care if Badnarick and Cobb paid the entire 1.5 million or however much it is.  But when all they had to pay was 113,000 dollars and the people of Ohio get stuck with the rest, all because a bunch of crybabies don't like the outcome.   Then that ain't right.

[Alcon]

Am I the only one who would rather get much slower, much more accurate results than know the results an hour after the polls close and have to go through this crap?

[DanimalBr]

Am I the only one who would rather get much slower, much more accurate results than know the results an hour after the polls close and have to go through this crap?

If a slower initial count would eliminate crap like this, then by all means I say go for it. 

[Alcon]

Am I the only one who would rather get much slower, much more accurate results than know the results an hour after the polls close and have to go through this crap?

If a slower initial count would eliminate crap like this, then by all means I say go for it. 

I think we should have a manual hand count first, period. I do not care if we do not know the results by the time we go to sleep.

[agcatter]

Wouldn't bother me either.

However, this "recount" stuff when the spread is 120,000 votes is insane!!  Nutcases is right.  What the hell is the matter with these people?

[Will F.D. People]

Am I the only one who would rather get much slower, much more accurate results than know the results an hour after the polls close and have to go through this crap?

If a slower initial count would eliminate crap like this, then by all means I say go for it. 

My view is that a system where it takes a long time to count the vote is a flawed system. The longer it takes to count the more chances for irregularities like King County to occur. I am not saying whether funny business happened there or not, but I am saying that the way the ballots were "found" causes a breach of trust in the system.

I think the system should be swift and produce a decisive result. Junk like being able to register to vote at the polls has to stop. Junk like not being able to look at a ballot and figure out what it means has to stop.

I think electronic machines with a paper trail that can produce a reliable election night count is the way to go.

[Alcon]

Am I the only one who would rather get much slower, much more accurate results than know the results an hour after the polls close and have to go through this crap?

If a slower initial count would eliminate crap like this, then by all means I say go for it. 

My view is that a system where it takes a long time to count the vote is a flawed system. The longer it takes to count the more chances for irregularities like King County to occur. I am not saying whether funny business happened there or not, but I am saying that the way the ballots were "found" causes a breach of trust in the system.

I think the system should be swift and produce a decisive result. Junk like being able to register to vote at the polls has to stop. Junk like not being able to look at a ballot and figure out what it means has to stop.

I think electronic machines with a paper trail that can produce a reliable election night count is the way to go.

I agree. There needs to be two print-outs: one of them the voter gets to see, and when leaving is asked to make sure all their votes are indicated properly on it.  The other should be kept as a copy just in case there is a flaw in the machine.

[zorkpolitics]

Actaully I'd rather know the result sooner than wait a month to allow time to discern the intent of all the voters who did not follow directions and messed up their ballot, their polling locaiton, or whatever.

If the margin of victory exceeds 1% spending a lot of time and effort to try and recover votes from the over and under votes, won't make any difference to the outcome and is not worth the effort.

If the margin is under 1% (or perhaps 2%), the pre-election laws and rules should be followed during a manual recount to avoid the absurdities of FL in 2000 or WA in 2004.

[agcatter]

Yes, follow prescribed election law that was in place before the election.  None of this Florida Supreme Court rewriting things as they go along.

[A18]

Electronic machines can generally produce a 100% accurate result. In case case something crashes or goes wrong, I would also have a paper trail.

The paper trail should then be counted, and the results compared.

If there's a very significant difference, something was wrong with the electronic vote, and the paper record should count. If it's close, the winner of the electronic count should be the winner of the election.

[Akno21]

We need a standardized set of election and recount requirements.

[DanimalBr]

How dare every vote be counted in the most important state in the most important election? Those damn people who want to count every valid vote.

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

I guess counting every vote in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan isn't as important as Ohio.   Oops, I forgot.  Those are Blue states. 

[agcatter]

Nope, you're not supposed to recount Kerry states.  Those are clear cut wins.  However, when Bush wins a state, it has to be a counting mistake or fraud.  Even if he's 120,000 votes ahead. So sayeth the Democrats in their parallel universe.  They're getting progressively nuttier with every election.  Couldn'y possibly be the fact that their leftist ideology isn't playing with the voters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How dare every vote be counted in the most important state in the most important election? Those damn people who want to count every valid vote.

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

I guess counting every vote in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan isn't as important as Ohio.   Oops, I forgot.  Those are Blue states. 

New Hampshire had a statewide recount genius.

[J. J.]

How dare every vote be counted in the most important state in the most important election? Those damn people who want to count every valid vote.

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

JFRAUD the votes were counted; this is the re-count.

That said, if statute provides for it, fine.  If it looks too expensive, amend the statutes to make it more expensive for the candidates requesting the recount.  That's up to the Ohio Legislature.

[DanimalBr]

How dare every vote be counted in the most important state in the most important election? Those damn people who want to count every valid vote.

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

I guess counting every vote in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan isn't as important as Ohio.   Oops, I forgot.  Those are Blue states. 

New Hampshire had a statewide recount genius.

Guess again.  Ralph Nader requested a recount for a few small precints in New Hampshire, not a state wide recount.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/evoting/2004-11-19-nh-recount_x.htm

Notice the very key sentence in this story:

"Nader, an independent presidential candidate this year, paid $2,000 to begin a recount of 11 of the state's 126 precincts after an analysis showed wide differences in voting trends between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. "

Got any more brilliant ideas?

[dca5347]

We need a standardized set of election and recount requirements.

I agree,this is probly the easiest fix

[Gabu]

They only recounted 3% of the precincts.

Even if that were true, assuming that the trend continued, Kerry would only pick up 8067 votes and would need roughly 112,000 more.

Face it, we lost.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The recount was rigged.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/triad_letter.pdf

[Gabu]

The recount was rigged.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/triad_letter.pdf

...and you'll say the recount of the recount was rigged, and then the recount of the recount of the recount, and then...

What exactly would you like to have happen?  Is the election automatically rigged until Kerry wins?

[agcatter]

that's about the size of it.

[DanimalBr]

Mr. Santa-Elect Gabu, you are a truthful, fair, and honorable person.  Your party could use more people like you in it.