Is it unpatriotic to question the election results?

[Will F.D. People]

Given that the election irregularities of the 2004 Presidential election were minor, easily explainable by simple acts of incompetence rather than fraud, and not substantial enough to have any impact on the overall result, is it unpatriotic to continue to question the election results?

One could argue that casting doubt on the election process without basis in fact serves to undermine the democratic institutions of the country. Casting doubt over the legitimacy of the elected rulers in effect thwarts the clearly expressed will of the people. Is this, in fact, an unpatriotic way to express displeasure with the results of the election?

I think it is and I voted "Yes".

[Will F.D. People]

If you were an Iraqi who questioned the elections where Saddam got almost 100% would you be unpatriotic?

I think there is a distinction between protesting an election where there is clear evidence of fraud (Iraq, Ukraine) versus taking small problems and blowing them out of all proportion for the purpose of casting doubt on the legitimacy of an election.

I am not saying that there are not issues that we would do well to address. Having different standards in different parts of the state for accepting provisional ballots is something I think needs to be tackled. There are others. But to say that Bush would not have won the 2004 election if the problems had not existed is just so far removed from anything factual that I think people who maintain that position are undermining democracy in this country.

To sum up my position:

Pointing out problems in the election and suggesting ways to fix them --> Stengthens Democracy

Saying the the Presidential Election of 2004 is somehow illegitimate --> Undermines Democracy

[Will F.D. People]

Let me pose this hypothetical. Suppose someone out there hates George W. Bush and they want to cripple his presidency "by any means necessary". They believe this is their right and in fact their civic duty to do so because he is an awful President (so this person believes).

So out of whole cloth, this person invents a story that George W. Bush shoots heroin. Look at the facts: We know that he likes to keep to a set schedule: this must be so he can fix up at regular times. He is known the leave White House parties early; again, why does he need to get some privacy so badly? Under Bush, we never see his helicopter take off from the White House lawn anymore; this must be when he meets with his drug dealer. He is known to sometimes speak eloquently and other times have a hard time finding the right word -- just like other heroin addicts like John Lennon. That bodyguard in Chile -- his bag man! And he must have been under the influence of a narcotic or he would have pounced on Kerry's bogus statements during the first debate.

So this person who hates George W. Bush organizes protests with people waving placards saying "Take the H out of the White House" and so forth. A low-rated TV talk show on a mainstream media outlet takes notice and starts to fixate on the "evidence" for the story and gives the "movement" some credibility. Gallup issues a poll, and Brian Williams solemnly reads off the teleprompter that "For the first time since Woodron Wilson's administration, 25% of all Americans believe their president is in a drug-induced stupor."

I think the actions of this hypothetical person would be unpatriotic. Yes, we have a right to criticize the president, the election process, Kenneth Blackwell, and 51% of the people of Ohio. I believe that with that we have the duty to make responsible criticism -- criticism that does not undermine our institutions. Criticism that has some basis in fact, not based on politically-motivated hatred.

[Will F.D. People]

It is not unpatriotic. It is, however, undemocratic . . .

Was it undemocratic of the Ukrainians to question the results of their election?  Was it undemocratic of our government to question the results of the Ukrainian election?

No, because, in the election in the Ukraine there was clear evidence of fraud. If there were no evidence of fraud, then yes, it would be undemocratic.  Just like in Ohio and Florida there is no evidence of fraud, so it is undemocratic to continue to insist the election results are illegitimate.