• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ballots Still Contested in Wa.

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mar 4, 9:37 AM (ET)

By RACHEL LA CORTE
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Republicans have released 1,135 names of alleged felons who they say illegally cast ballots in the governor's race that Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 129 votes.
The list turned over to Democratic Party lawyers on Thursday contained the names and addresses of the alleged felons, along with 45 people who Republicans say died before the Nov. 2 election but who were listed as having voted.
"It's one more significant piece of evidence that this past election was not only deeply flawed but that we don't know who won," said Mary Lane, a spokeswoman for Republican opponent Dino Rossi, who is challenging the results in court. "Christine Gregoire is not the legitimately elected governor."
Democrats, who have intervened in the suit on the side of the state and argue the election should stand, said they doubt the accuracy of the list.
Republicans said they obtained a felon list from the State Patrol and compared it to a voter list from the secretary of state's office.
Rossi led after the first two vote tallies only to lose in a hand count of 2.9 million ballots cast. He and his supporters filed suit in Chelan County seeking to void the results, alleging widespread problems.
This looks like another case of let’s keep counting til we get the results we want. :rolleyes:
Source
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,945
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That was one thing about Kerry that was respectable. He concided.

This really needs to be tallied and counted to show the curruption (to get it fixed), but do not change Govenors again. That would be even worse on the citizens of the state.
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Rossi wins count. Wins re-count. Loses re-re-count with documented evidence of fraud.

Ohio - Bush wins by over 100,000 votes. Wins re-count by over 100,000 votes.

Boo Hoo Boxer contests electoral count verification because of alleged fraud and irregularities.

Yeah. Okay.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It really is sad that the Democrats have resorted to trying to steal elections. It undermines our whole political process and turns it into a circus.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,945
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I dunno.
I believe there were fraudulent votes on both sides of the fence and in between.

The real question is who were the worse offenders?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You people kill me.

I resent the implied attacks on Gore, and the phrase "keep counting till we get the results we want."

If you can really stand the truth....the United States Supreme court stopped the counting of votes in FL, 2000...before the results were known!

This is my one and only objection...I don't give a rats ass who won the recount, but I do resent the fact that the USSC usurped the power of the legislature and literally chose our President!

If there are of those of you in this forum that do not see the danger to our constitution and our very freedoms with this act, then you've been watching too much FOX! LOL

The race was so close in FL, less then 1/2 of one percentage point, that FL state law, not Gore, demanded a recount....this was mandated by FL state law!

I'm going out on a limb here, but as far as I'm concerned...5 members of the USSC should be tried for treason to our Constitution...namely Thomas, O'Connor, Scalia, Rhenquist and Kennedy.

As far as this governors race...looks like the Repubs can dish it out, but they sure can't take it...looks like they're getting some of their own medicine, and they don't like the taste.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you can really stand the truth....the United States Supreme court stopped the counting of votes in FL, 2000...before the results were known!
The Florida Supreme court went over the line by allowing the recount to continue after state law forbid it. The US Supreme ruled on what the Fl. Supreme court did. A court cannot make new laws, therefore, they had no right to extend the voting. Why you people think differently is beyond me. The law was very clear. Gore tried to steal the election and he lost, get over it already.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,945
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hoot said:
If you can really stand the truth....the United States Supreme court stopped the counting of votes in FL, 2000...before the results were known!
Damn the fact that it was against Florida law to continue counting beyond the timeframe, right?

Before the results were known? LOL, that in itself is funny. How many times did they recount them (before and after the court) - how many times did the result come up the same?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,945
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
haha... great minds think alike... Squawker :)
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hoot said:
The race was so close in FL, less then 1/2 of one percentage point, that FL state law, not Gore, demanded a recount....this was mandated by FL state law!
You are absolutely 100 percent RIGHT! And Bush won that mandated recount by the way. Then Gore handpicked 3 democratic counties to recount again. How does that taste? :shock:
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vauge said:
Damn the fact that it was against Florida law to continue counting beyond the timeframe, right?

Before the results were known? LOL, that in itself is funny. How many times did they recount them (before and after the court) - how many times did the result come up the same?
Never mind the fact that Gore won a majority of the popular vote, and that the ancient electoral process saved his ass. The people voted for Gore, and Bush won...so people threw eggs at his limo on inauguration day lol. And that's as much justice as Gore voters got.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Allow me to give you some history of what happened down in FL.

Tuesday, Nov 7th, 2000....

Bush.......2,909,135
Gore.......2,907,351

Bush has a lead of 1,784 votes

Because the difference was less then 1/2 of one percentage point, an automatic machine recount was done under FL Election Code 102.141.

This recount on 11/8 and 11/9 lowered the Bush lead to only 327 votes!

In light of the closeness of the election, under FL state Election Code 102.166 manual hand recounts were conducted.

Under Florida State Law, 102.166..before a manual recount is allowed, a sample recount of at least one percent MUST BE DONE!

This sample recount, finished on 11/12, showed Gore picked up several net votes, therefore a full manual recount was ordered...again under FL State Law!

It was this full manual recount that was stopped by the partisan hacks of our very own United States Supreme court! BEFORE the results were known!

If you don't see the criminality in this and the danger to our Constitution, then, as I said before, you've been watching too much FOX.

Just because those justices put those black robes on does not mean they turn into super-human beings who never make a mistake. The USSC goes back and amends past decisions all the time, in effect saying..."Opps..we kinda screwed up on that previous ruling...here's what we meant to say." Not a single justice had the courage to sign their opinion because they knew it was B.S.

The main sticking point was that different FL counties had different methods for determining what a valid vote was. Some counties counted swinging door chads( chads hanging by two corners)..the next door neighbor county had a policy where the chad had to be hanging by only one corner...while another county determined that an obvious pimple, or indent was sufficient to determine the voters intent.

What possible difference does it make if different counties have different methods for counting votes if each candidate is treated equally in each county? This was a bogus copout by the USSC. If this were truely the case, we would never have a valid election in any county, in any state of of our nation thoroughout our history..as all states and counties have differing methods for counting votes.

Let me close by saying....there is NO Date that is set in stone in any law...in any state....in any courtroom of our nation.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Batman said:
You are absolutely 100 percent RIGHT! And Bush won that mandated recount by the way. Then Gore handpicked 3 democratic counties to recount again. How does that taste? :shock:
This is the norm...not the exception in state cases like this. The counties in question had the most problems, and this was Gore's right under FL State Law.

Gore offered to have the whole state recounted, but Bush "I'm For the People, He's for Big Government," wanted no part of allowing this basic right of American citizens.

What kills me is the USSC had the nerve to transform the votes of 50 million Americans into nothing, and threw out all the FL undervotes, and then wrote that their ruling was intended to preserve "the fundamental right" to vote! ROTFL! Hypocrites!

Again...let me stress...who won the recount is not the issue...the issue is the USSC stopped the valid, and legal recount!

This is the most dangerous event to ever happen in the history of our nation.

But you conservatives don't care... your guy won.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,945
Reaction score
6,061
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Regardless of who "won"... I think this was really a great thing for the country.

Think about it... this last election "Your vote counts" was all over the place.

2008 will probably be the most consise and accurate Presidental election in the history of the United States. How much further down that road of inconsistancies and fraudulent votes would we have gone had this not occured?

But, going back to Hoot's response...

Here is a nice timeline.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/magtimeline.htm

Gore team wanted to throw out X votes and Bush team wanted to throw out X votes. Which evil was worse?

Dan Rather split this great country and made it worse on the electorate election night. It was him who turned the media into the swarm. My opinion.

Out of the three above, Rather caused many of the issues that were faced... I am so damn glad that man is retiring or retired.
http://www.ratherbiased.com/florida.htm
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Batman said:
You are absolutely 100 percent RIGHT! And Bush won that mandated recount by the way. Then Gore handpicked 3 democratic counties to recount again. How does that taste? :shock:
You're right. Gore tried to hand pick some districts that would be favorable to him and demand a recount in those counties only. That was crap. He should have called for a complete recount of the entire state. I think that's what the law called for. But the GOP is no better. They engage in the same type BS tactics all the time. It's not about what the voter wants to either party, it's about winning at any cost. Ethics be damned.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hoot said:
Gore offered to have the whole state recounted, but Bush "I'm For the People, He's for Big Government," wanted no part of allowing this basic right of American citizens.

What kills me is the USSC had the nerve to transform the votes of 50 million Americans into nothing, and threw out all the FL undervotes, and then wrote that their ruling was intended to preserve "the fundamental right" to vote! ROTFL! Hypocrites!
I thought Gore only wanted to recount 3 counties?

What do you mean the USSC threw out votes?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
I thought Gore only wanted to recount 3 counties?

What do you mean the USSC threw out votes?
I'm not saying the USSC threw out votes, but in a sense they did.

As you recall, Gore had more votes than Bush did across the nation.

By throwing out the 'undervotes,' those votes not picked up by the machines, the USSC literally stole the election with the pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision. I believe the Court committed the sin of being a known surrogate for the republican party instead of being an impartial judge of the law.

Bottom line...you don't steal an election by wanting all valid votes to count, but you can steal an election by stopping the valid and legal counting of votes.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bottom line...you don't steal an election by wanting all valid votes to count, but you can steal an election by stopping the valid and legal counting of votes.
There is the rub, Hoot. It wasn't a valid and legal count after the Florida Supreme Court extended the time beyond what the Florida Constitution allowed. They over ruled a law on the books to accommodate the Gore campaign. They didn't count the late absentee ballots from the military either which they should have done. Why are we still fighting this fight?
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hoot said:
I'm not saying the USSC threw out votes, but in a sense they did.

As you recall, Gore had more votes than Bush did across the nation.

By throwing out the 'undervotes,' those votes not picked up by the machines, the USSC literally stole the election with the pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision. I believe the Court committed the sin of being a known surrogate for the republican party instead of being an impartial judge of the law.

Bottom line...you don't steal an election by wanting all valid votes to count, but you can steal an election by stopping the valid and legal counting of votes.
I don't confess to have any idea what happened. I suspect there was BS being done by both sides. Really at this point- what’s the point of debating what did or did not happen?

It seems to me anymore morality has nothing to do with anything in our politics. It's all an "ends justifies the means" and a "win at whatever the cost- ethics be da*ned" attitude. And I think both parties exhibit that attitude. Then we sit around and debate who's worse? My attitude is "who the he*l cares?" At the national level, politics in this country seems to have become nothing more then a cesspool full of greedy, power happy, money hungry turds. And all the average American gets to do any more is vote for one of the two turds that floated to the top.

 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Squawker said:
There is the rub, Hoot. It wasn't a valid and legal count after the Florida Supreme Court extended the time beyond what the Florida Constitution allowed. They over ruled a law on the books to accommodate the Gore campaign. They didn't count the late absentee ballots from the military either which they should have done. Why are we still fighting this fight?
Ok...I'll stop on this, I know it's old news.

But allow me to say there is no FL state statute, or Federal deadline for the counting of votes.

Dec 12th is a FL deadline for giving the electors what is called "safe harbor." Safe harbor is merely a date that prevents Congress from contesting the results of the election. As the vote counting was stopped on Dec 9th, and was scheduled to be completed the very next day, this 'safe harbor' rule never would've come into effect.

What's more important....making sure the electors have safe harbor, or making sure all valid votes are counted?

The three branches of government are supposed to be equals.

There is no law on the books anywhere that allows the USSC to pick our president...which is exactly what they did.

The most dangerous and frightening thing to ever happen in the history of our nation.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Hoot said:
Ok...I'll stop on this, I know it's old news.

But allow me to say there is no FL state statute, or Federal deadline for the counting of votes.

Dec 12th is a FL deadline for giving the electors what is called "safe harbor." Safe harbor is merely a date that prevents Congress from contesting the results of the election. As the vote counting was stopped on Dec 9th, and was scheduled to be completed the very next day, this 'safe harbor' rule never would've come into effect.

What's more important....making sure the electors have safe harbor, or making sure all valid votes are counted?

The three branches of government are supposed to be equals.

There is no law on the books anywhere that allows the USSC to pick our president...which is exactly what they did.

The most dangerous and frightening thing to ever happen in the history of our nation.
Couple last thoughts. First, been checking some of the facts and laws you list here. So far you're right on target. I suspect if the election had gone the other way in such a close race the right would not have let it go so quietly. This would have been on Fox, Rush, O'Reilly et el 24/7 for months, possible years. Honestly six months after the election I never heard much about it. I have a feeling if Bush would have won the pop. vote and lost the elec. vote we would have already seen a national movement to get rid of the elec. college. In fact by 2004 I'd have been surprised if it was still in effect.

Last thought- it's over let it go.

It's over, let it go.
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pacridge said:
I have a feeling if Bush would have won the pop. vote and lost the elec. vote we would have already seen a national movement to get rid of the elec. college.
One of Hillary's first proposals as senator was to do exactly that. Oh well.
That's the final thought. :D
 

Batman

Active member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
407
Reaction score
7
Location
Fulton, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Pacridge said:
Do you have a source on that?
So much for the final word. :D
I don't know if her proposal ever made to the senate floor:
A Renewed Campaign

At predictable intervals — usually coinciding with a presidential election — advocates of a more centralized, socialist national government propose the abolition of the Electoral College, and the prolonged deadlock in the 2000 presidential campaign prompted unprecedented interest in the idea.

In her first public appearance as New York’s junior senator-elect, Hillary Rodham Clinton told a rally in Syracuse: "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president." Displaying anew the vaunting arrogance that propelled her into a futile bid to re-cast our nation’s health system according to her whims, Mrs. Clinton announced that one of her first undertakings as a senator would be to support an amendment to provide for the "direct election" of the president.Source
 
Top Bottom