Kerry criticizes election outcome

[Miss Jasmine]

Republicans are truely crazy people...

Nothing like broad sweeping statements, oh and it's truly, if you are going to call me truly crazy at least get it right.

 

[ashjohnson80]

Nothing like broad sweeping statements, oh and it's truly, if you are going to call me truly crazy at least get it right.

oh sorry nice comeback though

 

[dmadman43]

The allegations of voter fraud being made the sore losermans in Washington are laughable. Lets let the courts decide these baseless claims. The courts have already spoken as to the most controversial aspect of this contest, the wrongfully disregarded ballots from King County.

I love when you come off as misinformed. But, when you get your information from only one side, that's no surprise. No wonder you are relegated to being a contract jockey.

Dmadman, do you deny that the only way that a republican can win is by supressing the votes of minorities?

Objection your honor, leading the witness. The answer is yes, I deny it.

 

[dmadman43]

If you want to bring up facts to back your claims about the Washington Gov. race, please do so. I hope they are better than one I have seen so far from the sore losermans in that race.

Well, I see you really liked that Bumber Sticker people made out of the Gore/Lieberman ticket. "Sore Loserman". I mean, I know you didn't come up with that yourself. You've not had an original thought in your life. Now, on to your request... Not that you care...

In Snohomish County we learn yesterday that counted 282 more ballots than voters (158 mystery provisionals, and 124 mystery absentee ballots). And their elections director claimed in an interrogatory (you recognized that word, right?) she never adequately investigated these discrepancies. She claims Snohomish County does not have this data available in a computer report format nor can it electronically create a report with available data. To produce this list, elections staff must run an individual computer report for each precinct and its portions (approximately 1000 reports), which would identify the number of voters in a precinct portion who received credit for voting, tabulate the numbers in the precinct portions for a precinct total and then manually compare those numbers to the canvas for the November 2, 2004 election. So, apparently because it's too hard they just didn't both to do it, and are going with the discrepent numbers.

 

[WWTBAMFAN]

dmadman

I have been following the Washington case closely and even gave money for the recount. It appears that you do not know what is really going on in this case and I am glad to enlighten you. It appears that the attorney for GOP is an idiot and does not know what he is doing. Besides promising that this case will be resolved in 10 or 20 days, he filed in a court that does not have jurisdiction for this case. See http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0503/050114_news_governor.php

Of course, the Democrats have no intention of letting the case go the way the Republicans want, having filed a motion to stop it. The Democrats believe there are four problems with the lawsuit. First, the courts do not have jurisdiction in an election challenge of a governor's race (the state constitution assigns that power to the Legislature). Second, if any court has jurisdiction, it's the state Supreme Court, not a county superior court. Third, it's unconstitutional to hold a special election for governor. And fourth, the Republicans' claims don't have merit under the state law that speaks to contested elections.

If the state constitution states that all election contests have be to in the state legislature, then this case is dead. I am glad to bring you up to speed about the real status of the election contest that you are supporting.

 

[KarenC]

For the Washington state recount, wasn't it a Republican official who certified the results?

 

[WWTBAMFAN]

For the Washington state recount, wasn't it a Republican official who certified the results?

Yes and now GOP thugs are attempting to recall him for following the law. This race has been very amusing to follow.

 

[Charade]

Well let me tell you what seems to happen everytime a Democrat talks about voting reform. We're told:

1) it's sour grapes for 2000

2) there's no problem except for the stupid voter who doesn't know how to fill out the ballot,

3) it's none of your business how votes are tabulated in the electronic voting machines

Etc, etc., etc.

Generalize much?

 

[Charade]

You would think the need for voter reform would be no-brainer. Nope.

Even this stupid redhead thinks there is a need for voting reform.

 

[WWTBAMFAN]

dmadman

I hope that you heard that the judge in the Washingon Governor election case denied the GOP's motion for expedited discovery. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24878-2005Jan20.html

WENATCHEE, Wash., Jan. 20 -- A judge refused to speed up the Republican challenge to the bitterly disputed Washington governor's election, handing a small victory to Democrats on Thursday.

There is a hearing on Feb. 4 on the Democrats motion to dismiss. By the time this case gets through the courts, Christine Gregoire will be running for re-election.

 

[Charade]

dmadman

I hope that you heard that the judge in the Washingon Governor election case denied the GOP's motion for expedited discovery. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24878-2005Jan20.html There is a hearing on Feb. 4 on the Democrats motion to dismiss. By the time this case gets through the courts, Christine Gregoire will be running for re-election.

Kyle, since you're "in the know", please explain how it is statistically possible for an election where 3 million people voted and to have only 129 votes separate the winner from the loser? Same question applies for FL 2000.

 

[VampHeartless]

You would think there would be a national voting standard for national election. I mean, yeah, states rights, blah, blah, blah, but, really we are choosing a leader that serves us all! Shouldn't it be fair across the board?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Kyle, since you're "in the know", please explain how it is statistically possible for an election where 3 million people voted and to have only 129 votes separate the winner from the loser? Same question applies for FL 2000.

My guess is b/c that # of people voted for the winner and note the loser while the rest of the population was split 50%.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Amen Bella
The Dems never had a problem with the election "system" as long as they were running roughshod over everyone with their cheating. The cheating continues, but has recently been overwhelmed by the tremendous outpouring of genuine support for conservative principles. The liberals are dying off as a political force and they are in denial over the passing of their forty year stranglehold on politics.

Democrats see nothing wrong with precincts that turn out 120% of their registered voters - they see nothing wrong with precincts that always seem to "discover" a new box of ballots after the first count has been processed, knowing that somehow this "newly discovered" ballot box always has just enough votes in it to alter the outcome of a close election. Democrats see nothing wrong with having thousands of non-existant, or dead, people registered in their heavily Democrat precincts. They see nothing wrong with hauling bums out from underpasses and senile seniors from nursing homes to the polls and then offering to "help" them cast their ballots.

Democrats have been winning elections by fraud forever. They just cannot believe that cheating is not enough anymore = they are being rejected en masse and don't have the sense to realize it.

They think if they can tinker with the system just one more time they can again tilt it their way.

Left Wing Radicals - get used to the cold - you are out in it - until you rejoin decent human conversation, you are going to get more and more lonely out there. Say hello to Michael Moore and George Soros - Hope you enjoy each others' company.

And now for some reality:

"The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election."


We all know how that turned out. Or maybe not, as SOS Blackwell has refused to respond to Rep. Conyers investigation to date.

And as far as "liberals are dying off as a political force" - I know you haven't been around long enough to know the pendulum swings back and forth. It has swung about as far right as it can get and soon will be swinging back to the left. Anyone remember "The Moral Majority"?

Tick Tock....

 

[Charade]

My guess is b/c that # of people voted for the winner and note the loser while the rest of the population was split 50%.

Huh??

 

[Sirius]

Huh??

129 More People Voted for the Winner

 

[dmadman43]

Yes and now GOP thugs are attempting to recall him for following the law. This race has been very amusing to follow.

Too bad you don't appear to be following it too closely. I love how disinformation gets out. I've been involved in this since before the election. If anyone really wants to know whats going on, don't depend on flkhou to tell you.

 

[Charade]

129 More People Voted for the Winner

Um... I got that. But that was after the 3rd recount.

I asked how is it statistically possible for it to be so close with so many people voting?

 

[Island_Lauri]

"Last spring, India had an election and 550 million or so people voted from the dot-com billionaire to the poor, illiterate peasant. They all voted. Mr. President, they voted on electronic voting machines. They voted in a way that guaranteed the safety and security and accuracy of their vote. They had uniform standards. They had a nonpartisan board that oversaw that election. The result was shocking-they threw out the existing government. Nobody predicted that. Yet they did it with integrity. Surely, we should be setting the standards."


By the way, India is the LARGEST Democracy in the World.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Huh??

Okay--I'll try again....

Kyle, since you're "in the know", please explain how it is statistically possible for an election where 3 million people voted and to have only 129 votes separate the winner from the loser? Same question applies for FL 2000.

Margin of victory was by 129 in Washington

And by (I think) 537 in Florida

That means that 129 more people voted for the winner in Washington

And that 537 more people voted for the winner in Florida in 2000.

That means the winner won by more than slightly half of the vote.

That means that the campaigning for both parties worked nearly equally as well and that slightly more than half of the population voted for the winner and slightly less than half voted for the non-winner.

It is simple mathematics and not statistics. Majority wins even if it is only by 1 vote. In Florida--I don't recall exactly--but in each county (at least the counties in question in 2000), recounts are only done if the margin of victory is less than 1/2%. I am not certain the details of Washington--but the reasons the recounts go to the courts is because the person who lost wants the recount...while the ballot count did not meet the criterion for a recount in the county or state. If it met the criterion, then the recount would have been done....and their probably would still be a lawsuit by whichever party was not happy with the result.

Just because the outcome seems improbable by such a small margin, it does not make it impossible.