|
Grex > Agora35 > #160: Hand-counts more accurate, but only in Texas? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
ric
|
|
Hand-counts more accurate, but only in Texas?
| 
Nov 18 16:38 UTC 2000 |
I heard that Texas recently passed a law (or something like that), signed by
GW Bush, that says that hand-counts are the preferred and more accurate method
of determining the results of an election.
|
| 34 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 1 of 34:
|
Nov 18 17:30 UTC 2000 |
And we are all shocked--shocked!!--by the hypocrisy.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 34:
|
Nov 18 19:24 UTC 2000 |
Old news. Last night's news in Michigan reported that a hand count will
be done, at Dianne Byrum's request, in the race for Michigan's 8th
Congressional District. Republican Mike Rogers currently holds a 150
or so vote lead in the contest to replace Debbie Stabenow for US House.
Almost everything the Republicans have been saying about how awful and
unfair hand counts are is bullshit.
|
brighn
|
|
response 3 of 34:
|
Nov 18 19:58 UTC 2000 |
Oh, another difference between Texas handcounts and Florida handcounts: Texans
are smarter. After all, 20,000 of them didn't have trouble with the ballot.
Can't trust Floridians, they're yokels.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 4 of 34:
|
Nov 19 04:26 UTC 2000 |
How many texas voters used the same type of machine as florida?
Thats the question you need ask when you ask about the texas recount
law.
|
bru
|
|
response 5 of 34:
|
Nov 19 06:08 UTC 2000 |
So what about the message that the DNC sent to the various precincts telling
the workers how o cahllenge the overseas military ballots.
|
jazz
|
|
response 6 of 34:
|
Nov 19 13:53 UTC 2000 |
I presume Bruce is referring to the military regulations concerning
a vote not being a vote unless it is properly stamped and postmarked?
It's a military regulation. It may be a nitpick, but nitpicking is
the least deplorable activity either side's involved in right now.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 7 of 34:
|
Nov 19 16:22 UTC 2000 |
While there were overseas ballots rejected for lack of a postmark, it is
only in the fantasy world of the Repubs that all or most of the rejected
overseas military ballots were rejected for that reason. Many were
rejected for being from within the US, lack of Florida residency, lack
of voter registration, duplicate ballots, etc. NPR talked to one county
elections fellow who said that only a couple of the ballots rejected in
his county were for lack of postmark. The vast majority were rejected
for other reasons.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 8 of 34:
|
Nov 19 16:25 UTC 2000 |
Damn migrant nit pickers!.
|
bru
|
|
response 9 of 34:
|
Nov 19 17:18 UTC 2000 |
heard that 1400 overseas ballots were rejected, even tho No federal law
requires a postmark. dems have said if they want these votes accepted, they
should take it to court and let them decide.
|
ric
|
|
response 10 of 34:
|
Nov 19 20:33 UTC 2000 |
It doesn't matter what federal law says.. doesn't Florida law require that
they be postmarked? People overseas have to vote on or before election day
too you know. If there's no postmark, there's no proof that the vote was
placed on or before election day, and therefore SHOULD be thrown out.
|
aaron
|
|
response 11 of 34:
|
Nov 19 21:15 UTC 2000 |
Further, the letter Bruce referenced was *not* from the DNC.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 12 of 34:
|
Nov 19 23:10 UTC 2000 |
#10 says what I've been hearing since November 7: Florida law requires that
absentee ballots be postmarked the day of the election. Now, a ballot
properly received on or before November 7, marked by the receiving election
official at the time of reception, *might* be an exception, but even then
there is opportunity for fraud: Postmarks are carefully controlled, but
"received" stamps can't be. (Postmarks are under the control of a
disinterested authority, while the election official's "received at" stamp
may not be.)
A Federal law is not at issue.
|
mdw
|
|
response 13 of 34:
|
Nov 20 02:43 UTC 2000 |
My impression is that the absentee ballots that were received "ahead of
time" were included in the regular vote tallies - suggesting they were
treated differently than the ones received later (which presumably would
*need* a postmark to prove they were in fact filed on time.)
|
krj
|
|
response 14 of 34:
|
Nov 20 04:21 UTC 2000 |
The postmark is also needed to prove that the ballot was mailed
from outside the USA.
|
wh
|
|
response 15 of 34:
|
Nov 22 04:17 UTC 2000 |
Of 18 absentee ballots rejected in Leon County, 10 were from voters
who had not requested ballots and 4 were from people not registered
to vote in that county. Why aren't Republicans pressing charges
against these people if they're so worried about fraud? Who sent
those ballots in anyway and where did they get them?
|
brighn
|
|
response 16 of 34:
|
Nov 22 17:57 UTC 2000 |
Do we really need to ask why the Republicans are up in arms about clearly
fraudulent ballots being discarded, when those ballots moved Mr. Bush from
an uncomfortable 300 vote lead to a comfortable 900 vote lead, in a state
governed by Mr. Bush's brother?
The Republicans were quick to comment that PBC's ballot was designed by a
Democrat -- they mentioned this over and over. Overt accusations of Republican
fraud, however, goes comepletely ignored by them.
Gore is trying to win by stretching the rules beyond any sensible definition.
Bush is winning the old fashioned way, following in the footsteps of fellow
Republicans Nixon and Lincoln.
I think they should give the Presidency to Nader just because he's the only
one who isn't being a schmuck right now.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 34:
|
Nov 22 18:25 UTC 2000 |
Hey, I'm not being a schmuck either! (But, I don't want the job.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 34:
|
Nov 23 00:32 UTC 2000 |
(He's the only one who had even a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the
job who isn't being a schmuck.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 19 of 34:
|
Nov 23 02:24 UTC 2000 |
Opinions may vary widely on whether or not Nader's been acting like
a "schmuck" during this campaign..
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 34:
|
Nov 23 02:50 UTC 2000 |
Yeah. These days, it seems like opinions vary on anything that comes out of
my mouth. I could say the earth rotates around the sun and Bill Clinton is
our current American prsident and I'd have people disagreeing with me.
|
mdw
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
Nov 23 03:51 UTC 2000 |
Earth & sun revolve around a common point, and Clinton is a President
not a prsident. Also, residents of latin america would find your use of
the word "american" distasteful.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
Nov 23 03:52 UTC 2000 |
Yeah, I'd disagree with that.
The earth rotates on its axis, it *revolves* around the sun.
:-p
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
Nov 23 03:52 UTC 2000 |
(marcus slipped in..)
|
senna
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
Nov 23 05:02 UTC 2000 |
Oh my. :)
|