NC 2016 Gubernatorial Discussion Thread

[BigSkyBob]

So is it still possible for McCrory to win?    

The possibility is that McCrory keeps claiming that the election was rigged (But not the Senate race I guess?), and eventually the legislature will claim that since the election is fraudulent, they will pick the winner.


And I don't care how hackish you are, if you cheer that possibilty then you are a beyond a hack. You are a f**king fascist. Willing to overturn democracy if it means "Our Guy" remains in power.

McCrory's claim is that the presidential, senatorial, and gubernatorial elections were "rigged" by a series of fraudulent stacks of straight-ticket-Democratic absentee ballots illegally submitted in a number of counties. McCrory's claim is that the people who orchestrated the fraud were unsuccessful in "rigging" the presidential election and senate election, but, successful in "rigging" the gubernatorial election.


I have to object to your labeling objecting to ballot fraud as "fascism." Name calling doesn't alter the fact that in a true Republic, the person entitled to take office is the person who received the most ballots by voters who were eligible [citizen's, of age, residents, non-disqualified by felonies, etc., casting one and only one ballot for which they were not paid to vote a certain way.] Submitting stacks of fraudulent ballots would be a fundamental assault on true Republicanism in favor of the type of "Republic" exists in third-world countries, as would voting twice, submitting ballots on behalf of third parties, including dead people , and non-citizens voting. If those who oversee elections turn a blind eye to such abuses, then, we live in a third-world style Republic, not a the true Republic the founding fathers envisioned.

Maybe McCrory wasn't able to overcome the fraudulent ballots that Trump and Burr did, but, that is a distinction that doesn't make a moral difference. If he took the plurality of lawful votes he is morally entitled to be the next governor.

[BigSkyBob]

The Daily Kos had an interesting, if hysterical article on a possible challenge by McCrory:


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/22/1602733/-How-Pat-McCrory-is-preparing-to-ask-North-Carolina-s-GOP-legislature-to-steal-the-election-for-him

The errors in the article are numerous.

1) Election challenges are part of the process. To so grossly prejudge an election challenge before giving the challenger an opportunity to state his case is unfair, and, fundamentally, un-American.

2) Election challenges exist to seat the rightful winner. This is not an academic question. Hayes successfully challenged the apparent results of the 1876 elections arguing among other things that Blacks had been systematically denied the opportunity to cast ballots, and, had they been allowed to cast such ballots that he would have won a majority. The irony of the authors claims are thick.

3) Election challenges exist to stop the stealing of elections, not, steal elections. In the same election of 1876, a Democratic governor of Oregon disqualified the duly elected Elector who was pledged to the Republican nominee on a technically [which might have not been proper based on another technicality], and replaced him with not with another Elector pledged to the winner of Oregon, but, rather, an Elector who supported the Democrat. That was a blatant and transparent attempt to steal an election.  Had that challenge not been upheld, the Presidential election itself would have been stolen. Thankfully, we have remedies to such abuses.

4) The rightful winner in North Carolina is the person who received the most valid ballots. A valid ballot being a vote cast by a lawful resident who is a citizen, of age, not disqualified by felony conviction, etc., casting one and only one ballot on his own behalf for which he has not been paid. It is that count that ought determine the winner, and, not an official count tainted by the votes of non-citizens, fraud, duplicate voting, etc.

5) The remedies are clear enough. Just as in the election of 1876, as a political question, the judges of the challenge can award the election to rightful winner, or they could order a new election and let the electorate vote for Cooper if they think he truly won, or McCrory if they think he was the legitimate winner.

Finally, I would say, if only it were true! Finally, we may see some Republicans with a backbone saying "Enough!" to things such as allowing non-citizens to vote with a wink-and-a-nod.

[BigSkyBob]

Austria recently had a Presidential election in which the losing candidate won the vote on election day, but, lost due to his opponent winning the mail ballots by a very large margin.  There were some irregularities in the handling of mail in ballots, so the Austrian Supreme Court voided the election and ordered a new election. The Austrian Supreme Court took the integrity of the election process seriously. Many of the posters here do not. It heard the challenge rather than rejecting it out of hand. The Austrian Supreme Court did not demand proof of a specific number of questionable ballots that exceeded the final margin. It erred in the favor of election integrity.

If Pat McCrory wishes to contest this election, which, I strongly support him doing, then at that point the burden of proof will rest firmly on him. If people here wish to claim that any election challenge cannot possibly be meritorious, then, that is a claim in which the burden of proof shifts firmly back to the denier. Those that wish to claim that Pat McClory does not have a legitimate case need to show proof that in combination the number non-citizens, non-residents, duplicate voters, and, fraudulent ballots cannot possible exceed the final count's margin.

Scott Favol stated that "we've been bussing people in for fifty years." Maybe that happened in North Carolina. Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina had elections that weren't thought to be very competitive. Perhaps, some folks in those states engaged in same-day registration in North Carolina. Surely, everyone here finds such conduct illegal, immoral and unacceptable. Shouldn't Pat McCrory have the right to investigate that possibility?

One study estimated about a sixth of non-citizens were registered to vote. If that were proportional to North Carolina, the number of registered non-citizens would exceed the final margin by an order of magnitude. Surely, everyone here thinks citizens and only citizens are entitled to vote.   Shouldn't that possibility be investigated?

There was ballot harvesting. Some forms of ballot harvesting are illegal. Shouldn't that possibility be investigated?

The question is do honest election matter? To me, they do.

[BigSkyBob]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Protesting is one thing, because the protesters are citizens who merely do not like who was elected. Using legislative power to elect someone who was not elected by the majority of voters is a different ball game. That is a violation of democracy and should not even be considered.

But, seating the person who received the majority of votes cast by eligible voters is completely legitimate. That is why we have election contests.

[BigSkyBob]

BigSkyBob, can you name a time you've supported a Democratic election challenge? If so, what contest, and what was the outcome? If not, why not?

Yes, Fort Worth Texas Democratic primary, multiple races, ongoing.

Surely, you meant to ask me why I supported his challenge. To answer your question, because cheating is unacceptable. The particulars were that vote "harvesters" were engaging in illegal tactics such as tricking people into signing an electronic petition that was used to create unauthorized mail in ballot applications, removing ballots from mail boxes, giving improper assistance in casting ballots, and other irregularities.

In one instance a harvester came to a couple's home. The husband told the harvester that the precinct was just across the street so that he didn't need a mail-in ballot. The harvester told him that he had to have proof of the visit to be paid, so asked that the husband sign a form acknowledging the visit. He did. Then, the harvester asked him if his wife could sign a similar form. She did. On election day, the couple went to vote only to be told that they had already voted by mail. An investigator asked the couple, "Did you sign a yellow square form?" They stated they had. That yellow form was their vote. The harvester had stolen their votes.

Harvesters target the less educated and the less intelligent because they are easier to deceive. If someone tried that crap on me I'd have the police arrest them on the spot. I suspect you would do the same thing if someone did that to you.

Some of the contested races were within two dozen votes.