Shoe on the other foot?

[Ken King]

It helps if one opens their eyes.

Initial results (with absentees) shows 2,883,499 votes cast
Machine recount shows 2,883,341 votes cast (difference is 158 lower than initial)
Manual Recount shows 2,884,783 votes cast (difference is 1,284 higher than initial)
Final Numbers used shows 2,810,058 votes cast (difference now is 73,441 lower than initial)

 

[Aimhigh2000]

oh yeah

By the way, Washington State allows for a third count, but only if the challenging party pays for it, which the dems did. Here's the twist. IF the hand recount changes the results and the challenging party ends up winning, the state picks up the tab. I dunno, even I have my doubts. And like Ohio, when they did the recount, they found that there were more ballots counted than people that voted, oh, and don't forget the dead people that voted! I think I may just become an independent.

 

[Lenny]

By the way, Washington State allows for a third count, but only if the challenging party pays for it, which the dems did. Here's the twist. IF the hand recount changes the results and the challenging party ends up winning, the state picks up the tab.

This is like medical malpractice. If the lawyer who brings the charges wins, he gets 40% of the outlandish millions awarded by the gullible jury. If he loses, he gets a great tax write off for that year. He can't lose!

 

[Penn]

Has anyone seen this article?

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Stolen Election?


Opinion Journal / Wall St. Journal, by Editorial



</TD></TR><TR><TD>Original Article





</TD></TR><TR><TD>[size=-1]Posted By:antidem, 1/12/2005 12:24:58 AM[/size]





</TD></TR><TR><TD width="100%">Democrat Christine Gregoire will be sworn in as Washington's Governor today, possibly thanks to voters such as Mary Coffey, James Courneya and Rosalie Simpson. Why do we mention them in particular? Because, as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently reported, they're all dead--and have been since well before the first absentee ballots were even mailed out. </TD></TR><TR><TD width="100%">




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Ken King]

By the way, Washington State allows for a third count, but only if the challenging party pays for it, which the dems did. Here's the twist. IF the hand recount changes the results and the challenging party ends up winning, the state picks up the tab. I dunno, even I have my doubts. And like Ohio, when they did the recount, they found that there were more ballots counted than people that voted, oh, and don't forget the dead people that voted! I think I may just become an independent.

Well according to the law mandatory recounts are done without charge to either of the contending candidates (See RCW 29A.64.021). As to the limitation check 29A.64.070 and you will find that there is no provision for a party paying for any additional counts beyond the limitation (cite your reference). If that is what took place as you say then it is another case like Florida where the laws are being changed as they go.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think this is why we need laws that ban recounts all together, or limit them to a single recount. Once the initial vote tally is in, the loser knows exactly how many votes they need to win. In a close election, it's easier to come up with small numbers of "missing" votes that somehow always seem to turn up in heavilly Democratic districts. I can't remember boxes of "missing" votes ever turning up in Republican districts. Every time there's another recount, you give the cheaters time to create more votes.

Another option would be to ban the release of vote tallies and just do an automatic recount before releasing the results. Take two or three days to reach a firm cut-off date for voting, double-count the tallies, and then say who won.

 

[vraiblonde]

Another option would be to ban the release of vote tallies and just do an automatic recount before releasing the results. Take two or three days to reach a firm cut-off date for voting, double-count the tallies, and then say who won.

The media dudes would scream their heads off - it would totally ruin election night, kill their ratings and goof up their ad revenue. And I'd scream my head off because election night is better than SuperBowl for me. Better than Christmas. Better than my birthday.

It's typical of Democrats to yell their heads off for four years about "stolen elections", then not say a word when something like this happens.

And RRaley, you never answered my question:

RRaley, doesn't it strike you as odd that the R wins twice and it's not official, but the D wins once, and it's done?

 

[Bruzilla]

The media dudes would scream their heads off - it would totally ruin election night, kill their ratings and goof up their ad revenue.

My reply to them would be "too bad"

 

[vraiblonde]

My reply to them would be "too bad"

Well, like it or not, elections in this country are a major event. We're a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" and we have a right to monitor our elections. Plus it's good for Americans to get excited about their government - the citizens of dictator nations don't sit up all night waiting to see who their new elected leaders are going to be.

But you're right that this recount business has gotten out of hand and something needs to be done.

 

[SamSpade]

And RRaley, you never answered my question:

He doesn't need to - whether RR believes this (and I suspect he does not), liberals operate on the premise that their candidate is *always* the presumptive winner, and that Republicans only win because they cheat better or are put in office by an electorate that doesn't know any better. If people only were as smart as they were, they'd always vote the liberal cause. Only bigots, Jesus freaks, rich decadent businessmen and rednecks vote Republican!

Thus we have the observation by RR that subsequent recounts continued to slide towards the Democrat - further re-votes or re-counts would only "solidify" the "truth". The premise being not that Gregoire 'stole' the election, but was always going to be the winner, just as Al should have won. Ergo, Al got cheated of an election, Gregoire did NOT get cheated. QED.

Now even though I work with stats all day, I'm not a statistician - but I do know when an election falls *well within* the margin of error, subsequent recounts do NOT produce *greater* accuracy. They DO however, start to introduce *greater* ERROR.

 

[rraley]

]And RRaley, you never answered my question:

I don't know mame. I guess that you would have to ask the Republican Secretary of State out there in Washington.

 

[vraiblonde]

I guess that you would have to ask the Republican Secretary of State out there in Washington.

Why? Does he know whether you think this is odd or not?

Let me rephrase:

Do you, RRaley, personally find it odd that the R won twice and it wasn't good enough to certify, but the D wins once and that's enough to call it a win?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Why? Does he know whether you think this is odd or not?

Let me rephrase:

Do you, RRaley, personally find it odd that the R won twice and it wasn't good enough to certify, but the D wins once and that's enough to call it a win?

Go Vrai!!!!

 

[Bogart]

Anyone else find those pointilism drawings of people's heads in the Wall Street Journal to be creepy?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Anyone else find those pointilism drawings of people's heads in the Wall Street Journal to be creepy?

 

[rraley]

Do you, RRaley, personally find it odd that the R won twice and it wasn't good enough to certify, but the D wins once and that's enough to call it a win?

I think that there is a process in Washington state for recouting votes and that the process recently was put in place and the powers that be out there, which in this instance is a Republican, think that that process was sound and legal.

As for recounts, they usually help Democratic candidates because Democratic votes are often found in large cities and larger counties. With more ballots, there is a greater opportunity for error with machines, wouldn't you agree?

 

[rraley]

I, myself, think that it's fishy. Any election with this close or a margin is fishy.

 

[Lenny]

"County election officials insist these are all honest goofs"

Now why would the county election officials refer to the Democrats that way?

 

[Lenny]

I don't know mame. I guess that you would have to ask the Republican Secretary of State out there in Washington.

Why is it that the Dems always fixate on the party affiliation of the Secretary of State? As if that makes a difference when the Dem party faithful are out there scratching 'x's on the ballots of all those cemetary residents.

 

[Penn]

Now why would the county election officials refer to the Democrats that way?

I'm not sure that is a quote I made, but I will quote someone else from this thread which has gone completely unanswered:

"Do you, RRaley, personally find it odd that the R won twice and it wasn't good enough to certify, but the D wins once and that's enough to call it a win?"

That speaks volumes, as the saying goes about the liberal mindset in this country.

OFF TOPIC: Did anyone here happen to catch Teddy Kennedy attempting to scare the nightclothes off of seniors, saying that Pres. Bush is going to cut Social Security benefits by 33%?

That's the problem with far-left liberals: they know how to lie and they know they can get away with it. The sad fact is wussy Republicans have never learned how to combat that kind of diatribe.<!-- / message -->