The New Florida; Washington State

[island911]

Four years ago, recounting Floridian ballots was all the rage.

Here in the great liberal State of Washington, our Govener race vote-count is the closest in this nations history.

Hard to believe, but a Republican (Dino Rossi) has edged-out the Dem contender (Haggared Witch . . .er. . Christine Gregoire ...French prnc, I believe).

The first vote-count had Rossi (R) leading by ~250 votes.

For the second recount, the Dem's pulled an Al Gore, and found another 200 votes for Haggared Witch (D) by counting "intended votes" . . ya know, where the little bubble isn't filled in, but there maybe was a slight pen-mark near the ( )Haggared Witch spot.

So now, Gregoire (D) want to have a Hand-Recount, of the uber-liberal counties, hoping to generate a different count, so that a statewide, (taxpayer paid) THIRD recount may give her a victory.

http://www.komotv4.com/stories/34177.htm

Am I the only one who thinks this Dem is out-of-line, demanding a hand recount?

Should there just be a second vote .. .a run-off election?

Regardless; Florida, you guys are now off the hook. The liberals of the State of Washington have just bumped you.

[RickM]

Should be every district and she should pay...that would be fair.

But "intended votes"...c'mon.

[juanbenae]

that must be killin' you isle.....

[widebody911]

Intended votes? What, are they getting a psychic and channeling the ballots or something?

[Superman]

Island, with all DUE respect, I don't think you'd recognize an unbiased idea if you saw one. You said it yourself. This is the closest election in anyone's memory. I think the last count had Rossi by......drum roll please......41 votes. Something like that. So, tell me again how it's a sinister liberal (or French perhaps) plot that is likely to result in a careful recount of votes. The margin is forty votes!!!!! With a margin like that, the result is virtually a tie, and some might suggest that it makes sense to carefully count votes so that we can be as sure as possible who the people have chosen. The margin is going to be just a handful of votes. Sloppiness works when the margin is thousands of votes, but not when it's three dozen.

And I believe that, in the current situation, the rules which govern these matters call for this last statewide recount to be manual. A hand recount. I'd be interested in hearing your criticism of this policy, and/or your theory that it's a French conspiracy or whatever. Sheesh....!

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. . result in a careful recount of votes. The margin is forty votes!!!!! With a margin like that, the result is virtually a tie, and some might suggest that it makes sense to carefully count votes so that we can be as sure as possible who the people have chosen. The margin is going to be just a handful of votes. Sloppiness works when the margin is thousands of votes, but not when it's three dozen. ..

So then you don't like the idea of a re-vote? . . a run-off.

"Virtually tied"? . . you mean "Almost tied" . .. where Rossi has won ?

Are you saying that a recount by hand will be MORE accurate than machine?

[Drago]

Supe,

From what I understand she only wants hand re-counts in the ultra-liberal counties...where she stands to gain the most.

I'm all for making sure the winner is in fact the winner but I think her tactics (requests) are unfair. If your going to do a hand re-count, do all the ballots...and she, the Dems, should be paying for it.

[island911]

Originally posted by k911sc
that must be killin' you isle.....

eh . . . I get some sort of twisted pleasure out of witnessing the liberal establishment, of this state, continue to respond to the voters with their elitism and contempt.

This state went, solidly, to Kerry. Yet this guy Rossi is clearly the smarter choice. (a Republican winning in this state . .. )

Anyway, we've had a few referenda here, where the voters solidly passed . . . and the Lib's defeat in court.

Then a Baseball Statium; voters voted it down . .. Lib's twisted the defeat as "the voters just didn't want to pay for a new stadium, that way (that proposed tax structure) So they tweeked the new tax structure, and put it thru.

Shenanigans. Liberals must have control of all "programs." No program shall die. ALL our monies are belong to us lib's.]

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe -
I'm with Drago. I think the real a$$-chafing part is her pulling a "Gore" -- wanting to cherry-pick only those jurisdictions likeliest to help her. If it's state-wide and run is as non-partisan a fashion as possible, I wouldn't bytch too much (except for the cost). But it has been two votes and Rossi leads in both of them; part of the process is the END of the process.

Let's say a third recount on the D's terms results in her with a 5-vote advantage. OK, then the R is going to say -- now we recount MY hand-picked jurisdictions ... that's only fair, right? If the winner after two counts is now the loser by a smaller margin than either of his victories, he's got more right than the initial loser to have a recount of his own, on his terms. This could go on forever.

It could go on forever even if it's a state-wide recount, frankly. If the D is ahead by a hair's breadth after the THIRD count, and voter "intent" has been used to determine votes... blammo! How 'bout this: if you can't clearly and accurately, beyond the shadow of a doubt, mark your vote, it doesn't count... for either side.

You have elections to have closure and to let government govern. Jeez, even Nixon understood that.

JP

[mikester]

Originally posted by island911
[B]

Anyway, we've had a few referenda here, where the voters solidly passed . . . and the Lib's defeat in court.

The only statement I take issue with is above...

Just because a measure passes - just because everyone votes for it - DOES NOT MEAN IT IS LAW IF IT IS CHALLENGED IN COURT AND DEFEATED JUSTLY.

If a law were passed that was against say the constitution BUT it still passed - is it law? If it is unchallenged it is but still it could be challenged. IF it were challenged and then lost in that court battle then of course it would not be law. Even if it got 100% of the vote it would not be law. In that case of couse an amendment to the Constitution would be in order because ultimately WE are responsible for the contents of that document. It is not responsible for what is contains.

As far as that election goes...I say a run off is in order.

Everyone take next tuesday off - meet at the pub and drink until one of those two can't stand. That person still standing wins.

Just sayin...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Mike - I don't disagree with your proposition in general; however, if the "people have spoken" whether indirectly through the legislature or directly through a referendum, the results of that don't just wind up sua sponte in court.

Someone takes it to court, and more often than not, someone jimmies with the bench assignments to get what they want (witness the chicanery of the 6th Circuit in the U of Michigan Discrimination cases, detailed in an opinion addendum).

There is no secret to the Left's horror at the notion that W will be able to appoint many federal (lifetime tenured) judges. The courts are the end-run for Libs when the public is not sophisticated enough to adopt the Lib's pet policies.

And even when it's not a matter of constitutionality instrumental (activist) decision-making is a hallmark of liberal jurists. Creating rights under the Constitution out of thin air -- rights that some of our most distinguished legal minds never ever saw even a hint of in over 200 years, until all of a sudden a newly conjured "Right of Privacy" was discovered in the Constitution. Maybe it was on a Post-It stuck to the back, or something.

The FL Supremes in Gore v. Bush throwing out a state statute requiring certification of results in seven days and replacing it with one they made up on the spot -- w/o the authority to do so, incidentally, which is reserved to the legislature.^ Or the NJ Supremes allowing Dem's to substitute a candidate for the Torch Torricelli in flagrant violation of the crystal clear letter of NJ law.* But, no, the law wasn't convenient to those circumstances, so it had to be "interpreted" for it's intent (code for ignored). Everybody sing along .... "Let Every Vote Count, Kumbayah". Yeah, except those that are inconvenient.

The "principle" of creative jurism is flawed to its core, and I'll call Bullshyt whether it's Right or Left pulling that stunt. This activist usurpation by judges is indefensible, but very convenient to the Left who lose at the ballot and in the legislature and have no other way to get what they want. So they dress up their defense of this radicalism in a variety of guises "every vote count" "will of the people" etc. We're not fooled.

JP

^In order to give three Florida counties time to complete their hand recounts of the presidential ballots, the court threw out the express, written, crystal clear statutory seven-day deadline and replaced it with a new one of its own devising.

The Florida Supremes exceeded their lawful powers, with astonishing inventiveness, in a case where the political stakes could hardly be higher. Consider the Florida court's arrogance. It overturned choices made by all three branches of Florida's government: by the state legislature, which wrote the certification deadline into law; by the governor, who signed the law, and the secretary of state, who tried to enforce it; and by the circuit-court judge who had approved the secretary of state's effort to enforce it. The Florida court claimed to be defending "the will of the people" by overruling laws passed by the men and women those people elected.

The Florida court reasoned that two state laws were in conflict. One provision said that returns filed after the deadline "shall be ignored," while another said that returns filed after that date "may be ignored." Gore's team argued that the fact that the secretary of state may ignore late returns does not mean she must ignore them; indeed, she must not ignore them. WTF?!? You'd laugh someone right out of your home if they presented that "argument" to you.

On that piece of baldly partisan "reasoning" did the FL Supremes get the decision they wanted to get to. If that was not your predetermined desired outcome, there is no way on Earth any thinking person could turn that statute directly on its head -- "may be ignored" becomes "must not ignore". Yeah.

*The New Jersey statute in question could not have been clearer: A political party may not replace one candidate with another within 51 days of the election. Since Torricelli, who was OBVIOUSLY going to lose, announced that he was getting out of the race for the U.S. Senate a mere 34 days before the voters were to decide his electoral fate, the letter of the law plainly forbade the Democrats to replace his name on the ballot with that of a different candidate (e.g., former Senator Frank Lautenberg). The law didn't require "interpretation" or "analysis" -- 51 days is 51 freaking days to anyone; unless you're a liberal court acting to the detriment of a Republican politician. Then 51 days doesn't mean 51 days ... it means what we need it to mean in these circumstances to effect our ends.

So, excuse those of us who have no faith in the evenhanded, dispassionate "application" of the law by activist judges.

[arcsine]

So Island,

Do you think, can you believe, even for a moment, that if the tables were turned, and your beloved Dino was down 41 votes, that he would not want a hand recount?

That there would not be loud voices raised at the bias of the liberal media and how judges "stole" the election.

Nah, he would just do the honorable thing and concede because the will of the people has been spoken.

If nothing else has been shown in this past election, it has been made abundantly clear that Republicans are honorable god-fearing folks that will lead us proudly to the Norman Rockwell promised land and Democrats are whiney losers whom need to go soak their sorrows in a subsidized non-fat, non-exploited-labor-produced latte.

If I understand you correctly that is.

[island911]

Gary.

fwiw, I most always turn the hypothetiacl table.

Yeah, I wouldn't like losing such a good candidate, by so few votes. (I dont know of anyone too terribly jazzed about Gregoire . .status quo)

I think JP said it well; "You have elections to have closure and to let government govern. Jeez, even Nixon understood that."

Come to think of it, I voted for Gregoire in the primary. ( she's not as bad as Sims.)

[Jeff Higgins]

Both of the preceding counts have been decided by a percentage of the voters measured out to the third or fourth decimal place. Statistically well below any kind of significance; within the margin of error by an exponential factor. The fact of the matter, though, is that the same candidate won both. The goal of the losing candidate and her supporters is not to gain a statistically significant victory; they know they will never turn up enough error in the process to widen the gap that much. Their goal is to win the election, all the while knowing that they will be staying well within the margin of error. In other words, they are counting on the luck of the draw to swing this statistically insignificant margin their way on the next count, and thereby win the election. These votes could be counted a hundred times and almost certainly both sides would win in some of those counts. Would the "true winner" win more of those counts? The margin is too close to say for sure. What the "losers" of the first two counts are banking on is that the third will come up in their favor, and statistically it might. Pretty shrewd in my opinion, but I do think they need to pay attention to public opinion on this. Almost overwhelmingly, the people of Washington are fed up and just want it over. If Gregiore pursues this, she may very well do lasting damage to her party in this state. She may have already, which would be too bad.

[genrex]

I think the recount will end up in a tie, and I'm looking forward to a good ol' knock-down drag-out no-rules fight between the two contendahs.

If it's a tie, a fight would be the fairest solution. And besides, how often do we get to see politicians show their passion with a good swift kick? It's always this boring parlaimentarian roberts-rules-of-order crap..

[Scooter]

Recount as many times as necessary until the Democrat wins!

[Overpaid Slacker]

Well, I for one applaud Scott's flagrant elevation of partisan over principle. If only his fellow-travellers were as forthright.

JP

[Superman]

Island, I appreciate the rational questions.

First of all, I like the idea of having rules and following those rules. That's how it works in all legitimate contests. It's this principle that allows you folks to dismiss liberals' whinings about the results of the 2000 presidential election.

Nope, I don't like the idea of a re-vote. Unless of course it's in the rules. Voter preferences can change, and the vote is supposed to be a snapshot. It's both the statistician in me, and the pure competitor, that makes me not prefer a re-vote.

I'm saying it's a dead heat. three dozen votes is so incredibly close to a bullseye that careful counting makes sense. Manual, I'd say. I trust people more than machines.

I'd also agree that recounting only selected counties at this point makes little sense, and smacks of tipping the competitive playing field. But you know.....and I don't want to sound whiney here and I am expecting more "HE'S A WITCH!!!!! response from some of you......this was one of the important issues in the Florida 2000 matter. Many say that if the entire state of Florida had been recounted, we would never have had to put up with the dolt we've got now.

So, some of you may want to cop some consistency with your remarks about the Washington State Gubernatorial election.

[Jeff Higgins]

I just don't think any method of recounting can give us a level of accuracy required to say with confidence who really won. I would defy any system, mechanical or manual, to count two million of anything and achieve repeatable accuracy as close as the difference in this race. With the Democrats already perceived by many as being the whiney losers in the Florida fiasco, I think they have to be very carefull here in Washington. If they do keep pushing on this, they may very well win the battle while losing the war. People are already calling b.s. on the cherry-picking strategy outlined by Gregriore's camp. She needs to consider her next move and the long-range implications of it very carefully. It would be a shame if she damaged her party in this state with a selfish move to attempt to swing this her way. We do have to decide this somehow, and for most folks two counts in a row does that. I hope she realizes that before it's too late.

[island911]

Jeff, I think you have this situation completly pegged.

So, superman, the statistician . .. what do you have to say to Jeffs summary of the situation. DO you think that CG can have a hand count come out w/ a few in her favor .. .. THEN it will be "every vote counted" ?