talk about premature celebrations!

from PolMach Forums
I just love this. does anyone remember the forum that said Dino Rossi had won the Washington Governors seat? And all the Republicans were celebrating because they had "won" by 42 votes? Well check again, because Christine Gregoire has just won Washington state's Governor's office in the hand recount.
democrat
13,081 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
By: Citizen huncle sam
Posted: Thursday, December 23, 2004
Message Board: Democrat
I just love this. does anyone remember the forum that said Dino Rossi had won the Washington Governors seat? And all the Republicans were celebrating because they had "won" by 42 votes? Well check again, because Christine Gregoire has just won Washington state's Governor's office in the hand recount


First, I wouldn't count on that win standing. It's most likely gonna be challenged multiple times, as it took at least 2 challenges to the original count to get the count to favor the Democrat, including magically "finding" some 700 lost votes in heavily Democratic King County.

It seems that whenever there are recounts, especially hand recounts, somehow Democrats start gaining votes.

Either Democrats are incredibly incapable of registering votes that machines will recognize, or they make marks that it takes mind readers to find later in hand recounts. Either way, it smells incredibly funny (like fish that has been out on the docks in Seattle for way too long), and Republicans are just as likely as the Democrats were to take it to court and fight over it.

Don't be surprised if there's not a serious call for a whole new election to determine who the real winner is in the state.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
First, I wouldn't count on that win standing. It's most likely gonna be challenged multiple times, as it took at least 2 challenges to the original count to get the count to favor the Democrat, including magically "finding" some 700 lost votes in heavily Democratic King County.

It seems that whenever there are recounts, especially hand recounts, somehow Democrats start gaining votes.

Either Democrats are incredibly incapable of registering votes that machines will recognize, or they make marks that it takes mind readers to find later in hand recounts. Either way, it smells incredibly funny (like fish that has been out on the docks in Seattle for way too long), and Republicans are just as likely as the Democrats were to take it to court and fight over it.


Hey, look who's yelling "fraud" now! and besides, out of in 2 million people Washington state who voted with machines that have a 99.9% success rate, 2,000 of those ballots will be wrongly counted or unfairly rejected. And besides, even if the Republicans challenge for a new election, the Washington House and Senate are strongly Democratic, and they have the right to reject or pass a new election.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from PolMach Forums Top
Hey, look who's yelling "fraud" now! and besides, out of in 2 million people Washington state who voted with machines that have a 99.9% success rate, 2,000 of those ballots will be wrongly counted or unfairly rejected. And besides, even if the Republicans challenge for a new election, the Washington House and Senate are strongly Democratic, and they have the right to reject or pass a new election.


So you have no problem with a Democrat stealing an election and having the Democrats that control the state congress helping them do it?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just be glad this is happening at the state level and not national this year.

P.S. I never liked a all mail in election anyway. Just leave to many hole in the system.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
So you have no problem with a Democrat stealing an election and having the Democrats that control the state congress helping them do it?


seems like you republicans don't care when one of you steals an election. And who said "stole"? I said "fairly won"
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Reply #5 By: Citizen huncle sam - 12/24/2004 5:42:21 PM
So you have no problem with a Democrat stealing an election and having the Democrats that control the state congress helping them do it?


seems like you republicans don't care when one of you steals an election. And who said "stole"? I said "fairly won"


Any time it takes 3 counts to get numbers that give you the results you are looking for, there's no "fairly won" about it.
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
Any time it takes 3 counts to get numbers that give you the results you are looking for, there's no "fairly won" about it.

1st count: machines cause almost 2000 voting errors.
2nd count: Machine recount: only some machine errors are fixed.
3rd count: hand recount: all votes correctly counted.

Besides, the votes that were found were found accidentally, which is not against the law, but the Republicans went looking for new votes, which has to be done before november 16th.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
talk about premature celebrations!

By: huncle sam
Posted: Thursday, December 23, 2004
Message Board: Democrat
I just love this. does anyone remember the forum that said Dino Rossi had won the Washington Governors seat? And all the Republicans were celebrating because they had "won" by 42 votes? Well check again, because Christine Gregoire has just won Washington state's Governor's office in the hand recount.


Don't laugh to awful soon. You may just endup swallowing your tounge. It's almost a sure bet that it will be challenged. The dems mysteriously found 700 votes in King county but told the republicans that they weren' t allowed to recount any of the votes that they found. Do *not* be surprised if they toss the whole election.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
1st count: machines cause almost 2000 voting errors.
2nd count: Machine recount: only some machine errors are fixed.
3rd count: hand recount: all votes correctly counted.

Besides, the votes that were found were found accidentally, which is not against the law, but the Republicans went looking for new votes, which has to be done before november 16th.


3rd count: hand recount where votes can be altered or "found" by making marks on ballots, interpreting marks on ballots that shouldn't be there, etc.

There's a reason we typically use machine counts - because humans don't trust other humans.

Either way, this race is well within the margin of error, and it should be (and likely will be, if we really want to be fair) re-run to allow for a real vote and real count.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
3rd count: hand recount where votes can be altered or "found" by making marks on ballots, interpreting marks on ballots that shouldn't be there, etc.

There's a reason we typically use machine counts - because humans don't trust other humans.

Either way, this race is well within the margin of error, and it should be (and likely will be, if we really want to be fair) re-run to allow for a real vote and real count.


Any time it takes 3 counts to get numbers that give you the results you are looking for, there's no "fairly won" about it.


and Republicans call Democrats stubborn....
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

and Republicans call Democrats stubborn....


So, there's no possibility at all of humans making mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional, that machines won't?


And demanding recounts until the numbers appear in your favor isn't stubborn?

Reply #12 from PolMach Forums Top
And demanding recounts until the numbers appear in your favor isn't stubborn?


No, it's making the results fair. What I about Republicans is that they get mad when the Democrats try to make an election fair. I'm not saying that all the votes were counted correctly, that is almost impossible. I'm saying that the hand recount was the most precise count.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Seems crazy that Republicans are crying about things that they argued 180 degrees against in Florida in 2000 and laugh about in Ohio this year. If they're having trouble with the machines counting votes, then a hand recount would become logically the next step. Those who are arguing for interpretation of how the votes are counted, do you even know what type voting system they use in that state?
Reply #14 from PolMach Forums Top
It seems that whenever there are recounts, especially hand recounts, somehow Democrats start gaining votes.

Either Democrats are incredibly incapable of registering votes that machines will recognize, or they make marks that it takes mind readers to find later in hand recounts. Either way, it smells incredibly funny (like fish that has been out on the docks in Seattle for way too long), and Republicans are just as likely as the Democrats were to take it to court and fight over it.


Are you basing this on just Florida 2000 and this, because assuming a 50-50 chance of it benefitting Dems or Republicans, this could be just a coincidence. Out of 2 parties, to have it benefit the same one twice, you are looking at a 1 in 4 chance. If you are not picky about which party it benifits, it is a 50-50 chance of it benifiting the same party twice (either Dems both times or Republicans both times), so it is not out of the bounds of probablility.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, it's making the results fair. What I about Republicans is that they get mad when the Democrats try to make an election fair. I'm not saying that all the votes were counted correctly, that is almost impossible. I'm saying that the hand recount was the most precise count.


So, by demanding recounts until they win, the Democrats are trying to make the election fair?


And hand recounts are the most accurate because humans don't make mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional, as machines do?

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: huncle sam - 12/26/2004 12:14:06 PM
And demanding recounts until the numbers appear in your favor isn't stubborn?


No, it's making the results fair. What I about Republicans is that they get mad when the Democrats try to make an election fair. I'm not saying that all the votes were counted correctly, that is almost impossible. I'm saying that the hand recount was the most precise count.


This is a load of BS!!! If they had won in the first count we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? So don't try to give me the crap that they're trying to make it fair. And BTW human recounting is "just" as fallable as machine recounts. "To err is human........."?
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a load of BS!!! If they had won in the first count we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? So don't try to give me the crap that they're trying to make it fair. And BTW human recounting is "just" as fallable as machine recounts. "To err is human........."


That's a good point. Would the Democrats have demanded multiple recounts if they had originally won the election?
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"For more than 200 years, elections in America have been routinely disputed, a practice that protects the will of the people. It is the only insurance that citizens’ intent is met.

As members of Virginia’s lower House of Assembly, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson themselves “intervened” in many disputed elections. During the 18th century, resolving contested elections was normally the first order of business in every new term, both in Virginia and in other colonies and states. Lawmakers would hear a county’s claims and then decide whether an election needed to be examined more closely or nullified and redone.

Indeed, the historical record is full of cases in which votes were resurveyed, confusing ballots reviewed, elections nullified and voters recanvassed. Even a cursory look at legal reports from the 19th century reveals thousands of pages devoted to contested elections.

When elections were questioned, common sense, rather than adherence to technicality, prevailed. Long before punch cards and other modern balloting methods became available, voters wrote candidates’ names on slips of paper. Misspellings and wrong initials of first names and last names were commonplace. Rather than throw out the ballots, judges ruled that voters’ intent had to be determined whenever possible.

Consider this report from Connecticut in 1878. “Votes cast at an election for A.J.W. may be shown to have been intended for A.L.W. The fact that A.L.W. was a candidate and received a large number of votes, and that no person of the name of A.J.W. or of the same first and last names, without the middle initial, resided in the district, would be satisfactory evidence to show that the votes must have been intended for A.L.W.” The judge considered voters’ intent rather than nullifying their votes.

In Iowa in 1877, judges ruled that “in reviewing an election and determining its validity, the court must, if possible, give to contested ballots such a construction as will make them valid.” "
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #18 By: UBoB - 12/26/2004 5:58:29 PM
"For more than 200 years, elections in America have been routinely disputed, a practice that protects the will of the people. It is the only insurance that citizens’ intent is met.

As members of Virginia’s lower House of Assembly, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson themselves “intervened” in many disputed elections. During the 18th century, resolving contested elections was normally the first order of business in every new term, both in Virginia and in other colonies and states. Lawmakers would hear a county’s claims and then decide whether an election needed to be examined more closely or nullified and redone.

Indeed, the historical record is full of cases in which votes were resurveyed, confusing ballots reviewed, elections nullified and voters recanvassed. Even a cursory look at legal reports from the 19th century reveals thousands of pages devoted to contested elections.

When elections were questioned, common sense, rather than adherence to technicality, prevailed. Long before punch cards and other modern balloting methods became available, voters wrote candidates’ names on slips of paper. Misspellings and wrong initials of first names and last names were commonplace. Rather than throw out the ballots, judges ruled that voters’ intent had to be determined whenever possible.

Consider this report from Connecticut in 1878. “Votes cast at an election for A.J.W. may be shown to have been intended for A.L.W. The fact that A.L.W. was a candidate and received a large number of votes, and that no person of the name of A.J.W. or of the same first and last names, without the middle initial, resided in the district, would be satisfactory evidence to show that the votes must have been intended for A.L.W.” The judge considered voters’ intent rather than nullifying their votes.

In Iowa in 1877, judges ruled that “in reviewing an election and determining its validity, the court must, if possible, give to contested ballots such a construction as will make them valid.” "


This may very well be. But why is it just now (since 2000) that it's having a BIG stink made about it? And BTW *all* of this still hasn't refuted my previous statement has it?

This is a load of BS!!! If they had won in the first count we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we? So don't try to give me the crap that they're trying to make it fair.


Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
That's a good point. Would the Democrats have demanded multiple recounts if they had originally won the election?


WhoTF is going to demand a recount when they won?
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
That's a good point. Would the Democrats have demanded multiple recounts if they had originally won the election?


WhoTF is going to demand a recount when they won?


The Republicans might have
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
WhoTF is going to demand a recount when they won?
Reply #23 from PolMach Forums Top
The Democrats, right? After all, they aren't demanding recounts because they lost. They're doing it so that the election is fair, right? Or was that simply propaganda by liberals?


You show me someone who demands a fair recount after they won an election and I say they should have a new election so everybody can get a 2nd chance to vote against the stupidest person on the planet. That sounds like something Dan "Potatoe" Quayle would do, the only person in the US stupid enough to believe he won his debate against Lloyd Bentsen. The reason to demand a recount either because its so close that its within a margin of error, or if the election is deemed questionable.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
That's a good point. Would the Democrats have demanded multiple recounts if they had originally won the election?


if you lost a very, very important race like this unfairly, would you let it slip?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
WhoTF is going to demand a recount when they won?


The Democrats, right? After all, they aren't demanding recounts because they lost. They're doing it so that the election is fair, right? Or was that simply propaganda by liberals?