Ohio challenge

[Andrew]

Clearly, some members of Congress had questions about whether Ohio's electoral votes were "regularly given"--specifically, whether the election (and subsequent recount) in Ohio was held in accordance with all Ohio and federal laws.

Given that they had those questions, it was their duty to object to the votes and to call for a discussion.

They were doing their job.  Anybody who suggests they should have ignored their own doubts just to make the process run more smoothly is not really interested in fair elections.

And for what it's worth, the fact that only Ohio was challenged is absolute, undeniable proof that this was NOT about changing the outcome of the election--even if Ohio's votes had been rejected, Bush would have won, 266-251.  There was no alternate slate to allow, so there would have been only 518 votes cast, and only 260 would have been required to win.  The other states that might conceivably been contested had already been passed over.

[Andrew]

If there were discrepancies in the way the election was held compared to the law, it seriously looks to me like the discrepancies were minor, isolated, and had no bearing on the outcome of the election. To me, there simply is not enough to warrant a challenge.

That's a matter of opinion; obviously, some members of Congress disagree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If anyone actually believed that, we probably would have seen 51 challenges today, rather than one.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This hasn't been a problem in local elections where small margins are common; there is no reason to suspect it will become a problem in Presidential elections.  Even if it were, it is reasonable for us to expect our Representatives and Senators to do their jobs, and to actually debate and consider any challenges to electoral votes.  As long as they
do this, frivolous challenges based on minor events will not result in overturning any elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They undermined nothing.  They followed the Constitutionally prescribed method of challenging questionable electoral votes.  They forced a discussion of voting problems that have been largely ignored.  We will see a number of election-reform proposals come from the 109th Congress.

Here's a guess:  Election-reform bills will be, for the most part, blocked by the Republicans in Congress.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that this was not only the best time to make their point, I think it was the ONLY time they would be able to get any media attention at all for the election-reform issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a matter of interpretation; you may be correct.  Of course, those making the challenge knew, as you and I both know, that Bush would win any election sent to the House.  There was no chance of any Republican-controlled delegation voting against him.  So my claim stands:  this was NOT an effort to take the election from George W. Bush.  It was an effort to shine a light on the numerous problems with our election system--problems which were most evident in Ohio.

[Andrew]

Two hours in Congress is an outrageous delay.

Ten hours in Ohio is not even worth talking about.

[Andrew]

If every single one of these scared away voters would have voted for Kerry, we would need almost 200 long lines to have enough discouraged voters to make a difference.

I disagree.  I think it would "make a difference" if even one voter had to leave because--whether through incompetence or by design--there were not sufficient machines available to handle the number of voters trying to vote.  And if this is more likely to happen in the areas where people have less money, or more skin pigment, or both, then it makes a BIG difference.

Voters didn't get "scared away", by the way.  A voter might have to leave because they risk losing their jobs or because they can't take a chance that their babysitter might not be able to stay at their home, or because they literally can not afford to give up a few hours pay.  Don't minimize other people's difficulties just because you don't share them.

[Andrew]

There is no constitutionally prescribed method of challenging electoral votes, questionable or otherwise.

You are correct.  I meant "legally" rather than "Constitutionally"--my mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, Stephanie Tubbs Jones said that, "This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning or challenging the victory of the President," not that the votes were not questionable. 

In fact, her opening statement was, "I . . . object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.

[Andrew]

Yeah, since when does 129 vote lead equate to a 118,000+ election outcome? 

The margin of victory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was fraud.  The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

There are valid reasons to be suspicious of both elections; there are valid reasons to feel confident about both elections.  The margin of victory is really not a factor.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  The margin of victory in the Ukrain was 871,402.  Nobody doubts that that outcome was the result of fraud.

[Andrew]

If I hear one more mention of the Ukraine election in a discussion of the Ohio election results I think I'm going to hurl.  Paleeeez.

I mention the Ukraine because it is relevant to my point:  the margin of victory has nothing to do with whether or not the election was in accordance with the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not particularly surprising that none of the Boards of Election suggested that their county results were problematic, whatever the reason.  Most people don't like to issue public criticisms of themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was a recount, and it would have gone a long way toward eliminating any suspicions, if it had actually been done in accordance with Ohio law.  But it wasn't; it was a joke.  The local boards ignored the state's recount provisions, and did everything in their power to avoid counting ballots by hand.  They had an opportunity to put the issue to rest, but they failed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the 1960 Presidential election, they did a recount in Hawaii.  A real one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would be a very good indication, if they had actually followed Ohio's laws in conducting the recount.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll notice that I have never said Ohio was stolen.  But I have become very frustrated with those who think there are no problems with our election system; and with those who think, without actually considering it, that fraud is not a possibility; with those who think that the margin of victory precludes any discussion of irregularities; and with the Republicans in Congress who, during the debate on Thursday, refused to address the issue of election reform, and instead complained about having their time wasted.

Our election system is a mess.  A huge mess.  And whether or not the Presidency was stolen in 2000, or in 2004, or in 1960, or in 1876, or any other time--it WILL be stolen in some election to come, unless we repair the process.

It bothers me that most Democrats, and virtually all Republicans, don't think election reform is even an issue worth worrying about.

[Andrew]

Hand recount?  In a state where the margin of victory was 118,000 votes?  You gonna pay for it Andrew?

I have never suggested that there should have been a hand recount.  I have said that there should have been a hand recount in the counties where it was required by law.  They were supposed to choose test precincts at random.  After hand-counting the test precincts, they were supposed to machine count them once.  If the counts were different, they were supposed to recount by hand.  If they were still different, they were supposed to count the entire county by hand. 

In practice, the test precincts were pre-selected.  If the hand count and machine count didn't match, they re-sorted the cards and machine counted again and again until they got a match.  If they didn't get a match, they tried again with a different machine.  If they never got a match, they still did the entire count by machine.  This happened in county after county.

They have the laws for a reason.  And if the bill for conducting the recount isn't high enough for your taste, don't blame me or the Greens or the Libertarians.  Blame the Republican and Democratic Ohio legislators who passed the recount law in the first place, and the Republican and Democratic legislators who have failed to adjust it in the years since.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure why the choices made by the Republicans in 1976 are relevant. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bringing up Ohio and Mississippi in 1976 shows that you really don't understand the issue.  The objection to the electoral votes was not about finding a close state or trying to change the outcome of the election.  It was about highlighting a state where there were many irregularities and questions about the conduct of the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem they have there is that they followed the state's recount procedures, and Rossi didn't like the outcome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm unhappy only because most people in our country could not possibly care less about whether our elections are well-run.  Voter intimidation?  Don't care.  No paper trail?  Don't care.  Totals come up different every time we count?  Don't care.    Voters removed from the rolls illegally?  Don't care.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll continue to refer to Ukraine as long as you fail to understand that the margin of victory is irrelevant.  I'd also like to remind you that you don't have the authority to tell me what I should and should not say.

[Andrew]

You casually float out terms like "voter intimidation".   Sorry pal.  There wasn't any.

Of course there was.  There is voter intimidation in every Presidential election.  My complaint was that nobody seems to care.  It gets dismissed with a "both sides do it."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There should be a recount because two of the candidates requested it, as they are allowed to under Ohio law.  Once the recount has been requested, they should follow the law in conducting it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about them?  If you have evidence of significant irregularities there, you should want a recount.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's never been my point; you haven't been paying attention.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My comment wasn't really about fraud investigations.  My comment was about Rossi, who was very much opposed to any challenges to the results until he fell behind in the hand recount.  Then, all of a sudden, he wants a re-vote.   He wanted the re-vote as soon as the numbers were against him.  Obviously, if it turns out that there was fraud in the Washington election, then it is more evidence of a broken system in major need of repair.  I'm opposed to bad elections everywhere, regardless of the result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You (and others) have put me in the position of having to defend the Ohio situation; that's why I've been discussing it.  The "outrage" seems to be coming from you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The answer is that I'm very consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't try to say anything; I didn't even bring it up.  But I'll say now that if one side or the other had suspicions of fraud, then of course it should have been contested.  A close election, however, does not constitute evidence of fraud.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Saying that the margin of victory is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was fraud is not dribble.  It's fact.  The Ukraine is a recent and well-known example of that fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think you'll be able to find any posts where I have ever suggested any kind of conspiracy.  I'll take the high road and refrain from calling you any names.  I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point is, and has always been, this:  our election system is a mess and needs to be fixed.  I was making that point here, and elsewhere, well before the election.  My point has nothing to do with John Kerry.

[Andrew]

Our elections are a mess even when they aren't close; it's just that nobody notices.

In every Presidential election, millions of votes are thrown out.  We have machines that leave no paper trail.  Why do we expect a recount to always produce different totals?  Because we know that the votes are not counted accurately.  The counts are usually pretty close--but why is "pretty close" considered good enough?

Both major parties work hard to keep minor parties off the ballot, unless it suits their purposes.  The Republicans seem to be more interested than the Democrats in keeping certain groups from coming out to vote, but both major parties are eager to find ways to disqualify the ballots of those who don't support them.

It's a mess.  And almost nobody cares.

[Andrew]

The computerized systems do not count the votes with 100% accuracy; both Snohomish and Yakima Counties in Washington, which use computer touchscreens, saw the results change with the recounts.  The results in Snohomish even changed during the machine recount.

That said, I don't have a problem with using the new DRE machines, as long as they provide a voter-verified paper trail.  Otherwise, we are just asking for fraud.

[Andrew]

The COMPUTERS in Snohomish got different numbers each time.  How is that 100% accuracy?

[Andrew]

This happened in county after county.

Which counties?

You can read observer accounts from most of the counties at http://www.votecobb.org

According to one of their regional recount coordinators--I can't recall his name right now--only 2 of the 88 counties chose the test precincts randomly.  When you read the observer accounts, you will see many of the situations I described.

[Andrew]

I looked at the report for Champaign County.  Why are the observers anonymized?

I don't know; this seems to be the case for every county.  It's curious but unimportant, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is obviously a typo:  190,808 instead of 19,088.  This is made clear by the rest of the sentence:  "three percent of this total is 572."  The important part of that paragraph is the next sentence:  "Precinct chosen for recount was Salem North with 605 votes; chosen because it was closest precinct equal to or larger than 572."  This violates Ohio's recount regulations, which require the county to select the precincts for hand recount RANDOMLY.

It's not in the affidavit (which is at the bottom of the page), by the way; it's in the report (at the top of the page).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would assume that David Cobb is ultimately responsible for any errors, even typos, on his website--although the fault probably lies with either the person who filed the report or with the webmaster.

[Andrew]

Don't be a tool.

If you're not interested in the topic, don't read it.

[Andrew]

Most of them didn't question the results, but they questioned the process.

How did it backfire?  People who care about election reform appreciated what they did.  People who were already angry continue to be angry.  Most people have no idea it even happened.

[Andrew]

I think it's more an example of "things that happened that nobody knows about."

[Andrew]

There were other ways to do that, that would have been appropriate.

I think it was very appropriate, but that really has nothing to do with whether or not it "backfired."  I'm assuming that by "backfire," you mean that it made them look bad to the public.  I don't agree, because I don't think most people have any awareness of it at all.

[Andrew]

Who is responsible for the error, and why hasn't it been corrected?

I would guess that nobody has called it to their attention.  Have you called it to their attention?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is:  http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/news/guide/recount.pdf

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, no.  That's part of Blackwell's job, too.

[Andrew]

The votes were counted and there was then a RECOUNT.

There was a recount, and it would have gone a long way toward eliminating any suspicions, if it had actually been done in accordance with Ohio law.  But it wasn't; it was a joke.  The local boards ignored the state's recount provisions, and did everything in their power to avoid counting ballots by hand.  They had an opportunity to put the issue to rest, but they failed.

I hate to say, "I told you so," but I told you so:  http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/25/the-final-chapter-in-cobb-badnarik-2004-recount-requests/.