136,000-3,893=132,107I don't see this as a math problem. Mistakes in an election, even if unintentional or do not change the outcome of the election, should be corrected.
Anybody want to double check that?
Your guy lost, period. It was a close race, but he lost. Suck it up and get over it, for chrissakes.It appears that Kerry lost, yes. I'd even go as far as to say at this point, without further evidence, it's unwise to say otherwise. Yet, it was not a close race by popular vote, just by electoral vote. It was not a mandate or a landside either. By the current numbers, Bush won with a solid margin of victory in popular votes.
Do you consider JFK to be an illegitimate President? If not, why not?I am not well versed enough in the numbers and facts of the 1960 election to say for certain how I feel. My general response to the 1960 election is not dissimilar to my response to election fraud that's happened throughout our history. It's repulsive, undemocratic and a crime. However, we're not talking popular votes, which Bush lost by in 2000. Neither the Kennedy presidency or the Bush presidency of 2000 are illegitimate because of the difference in the popular vote. In fact, irregularities that have popped up in close elections and landslides have nothing to do with the margin of victory. They are simply mistakes that need to be corrected.
The point is that if there is a problem, investigate it, see if it exists and fix it for next time.Why wait for next time when the problems are happening during an election? Even if the vote tally increases Bush's margin of victory, I'm behind investigating problems that were experienced in this election now.
"I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principals and empiricism," Suskind writes. "He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."posted by hulette at 12:33 PM on November 5, 2004
The essential question I need someone to answer for me (as I’m woefully ill equip to figure out the next step) is how do I, as a private citizen, insist that these votes get tallied?That, to me at the very least, is a great question. The counts aren't done and I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I want to voice my hopes that all votes are counted and any errors corrected. I don't want to just tell you, my friends or even most of the people I see on a daily basis in my solidly blue state. I want to tell the people who do the counting and the people who oversee the counting.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!posted by contessa at 3:33 PM on November 5, 2004
What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
None of this makes sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Can we ... conclude ... that the following is true?Then your supporting arguments:
George W. Bush is the legitimately, democratically elected President of the United States of America.
in spite of the fact that this means that the voting process should be investigated and/or substantially improvedOr, in other words, irregularities have been reported, but not investigated or resolved. This should not be the case.
these kinds of errors should be corrected and are indeed a worryOr, these errors have not been corrected, nor widely reported nor even officially investigated. The fact that they happened is worrisome. The fact that this is the norm in American elections is frighteneing.
since this margin or error did not alter or even come particularly close to altering the final outcomeIf you have evidence that supports this claim, please share it. However, since the discovery and publication of one error does not in any way amount to a conclusive proof that there were no other errors, how can you propose that you know the rate of error or that it doesn't change the final outcome? Oh, I see. The caveat to your conclusion is
possible future developments of a similar nature notwithstandingI'll tell you what. When the vote is audited on a massive scale in a manner that is transparent and non-partisan, no matter who wins, I'll gladly support the notion that the person who wins the most electoral votes is indeed the fairly elected president. Of course, I'll hold out until the election process completes with the casting of electoral college votes. If the audit does not happen before the votes are certified, if it's not done transparently, if it's a partisan hack job like Gore pulled off in Florida in 2000 or like the Supreme Court pulled the same year, I reserve the right to disagree.
« Older Best.Gig.Ever.... | We're so unbelievably sorry, e... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Paper ballots and pencils.
Paper ballots and pencils.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It isn't rocket science, even if you Americans have taken what should be a fairly straightforward process and turned it into an expensive, prone to failure and fraud clusterfuck.
And nothing will change until you ditch the computers.
posted by The Card Cheat at 11:02 AM on November 5, 2004