Slashdot Mirror
Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount
cyberformer writes "The Ohio election rules state that any losing candidate can demand a manual recount. Today, David Cobb and Michael Badnarik, the predidential candidates for the Green and Libertarian parties, announced that they are joining forces to do just that. A manual recount is important because it will include every ballot cast, whereas the first count only includes ballots that can be read by machine. It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry."
No one is ever forced to concede. the only reason a person makes a speech is for show. the speech itself has no legal force. If kerry does indeed win Ohio then Bush would lose those electoral votes, lose the election and be on his way back to texas in Jan '05. Even with the recount though, Kerry winning is a longshot, no need to get the hopes up.
The electoral college doesn't meet to vote until December 13th this year.
It's not officially over until they have voted. The results of that vote aren't unsealed and counted until January 6th.
Conceding elections is just a nice way of saying, I won't personally oppose you any more.
If the outcome changes thru some other process and the electoral college votes Kerry into the Presidency, that's it, Bush wouldn't have to concede anything.
Ohio doesn't use electronic voting. Over 70% of the state [including Cleveland, where I live and voted] still use the old "hanging chad" ballots.
The only regions that use the electronic voting machines are the wealthy republican suburban areas. Therefore any recount will help Kerry. Whether it will help enough is anyone's guess.
Here. And please do, it's worth every penny, even if just to confirm the ability / inability of the machines.
The ______ Agenda
The Greens might, but the Libertarians don't.
Democrats and Libertarians are very very different when it comes to economic policy.
Funny, since Nader wasn't even on the ballot in Ohio because the signatures he (or rather, his paid "volunteers") collected for his petition to be placed on the ballot didn't hold under scrutiny, and were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Jeremy
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Libertarianism is a political philosophy which advocates individual rights and a limited government. Libertarians believe that individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon what they believe to be the equal rights of others. In this respect they agree with many other modern political ideologies. The difference arises from the definition of "rights". For libertarians, there are no material "positive rights" (such as to food, shelter, or health care), only "negative rights" (such as to not be assaulted, abused or robbed). Libertarians further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect these rights.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
IIRC, congress can refuse to accept the electors if they so choose. If you saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" you may note the part of the film when a dozen or so house members challenged the election. Of course they were missing an endorsement from a senator, so the challenge was void.
Anyone else have any more info on this?
...in the form of a flash animation may be found on newgrounds.com here...
Obviously in the real world, practical matters soften the idealistic concepts in the animation, but it gives you a good idea of the direction that Libertarian political philosophy takes.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
No, congress cannot refuse the electors votes. The votes are collected in each state, sealed and sent to the President of the Senate. The Pres of the Senate opens them and counts them before both houses of congress.
Q.
If you would prefer to donate the money via the Badnarik campaign instead, here's the link.
Here's what Michael Badnarik himself posted in response to some comments in his blog:
I find the percentage of negative comments here somewhat surprising given the number of "please ask for a recount" messages that I've alread gotten. However, I'd like to clear up a serious misconception that many of you apparently have.
This demand for a recount is not expected to change the outcome. I may be "Quixotic", but I'm not crazy. David Cobb and I have no expectation that the results of the election will be changed in the slightest. What we ARE hoping to do is to find out just how corrupt the system really is. Why bother voting for anyone if the electronic machines are going to report a pre-determined outcome.
I saw a bumper sticker that expressed the idea very well. It said: DIEBOLD - MAKING MACHINES THAT VOTE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
Comment by Michael Badnarik -- 11/11/2004 @ 6:23 pm
Real libertarians want the government to get out of the institute of marriage.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Ohio didn't use computerized voting systems. They decided to use whatever they used last time because their nice new computerized systems didn't have a paper trail.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
The whole stolen election thing isn't with regards to winning or losing the popular vote. It's the opinion that Bush one Florida in 2000 on Fraud.
So long as there is the appearance of impropriaty, thats all you'll get. Same goes of Kerry, except it wasn't people close to Kerry disenfranchising the voters of Ohio and it wasn't people close to Gore disenfranchising the voters of Florida.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Bush may have neoconservatives on his staff, but he is not a neoconservative. He's a social conservative who spends like a Democrat (a Democrat in Republican's clothing?).
Bush was never a neoconservative. It's my belief that after September 11th, he pulled a Kennedy and said (something along the lines of) no idea should be left off the table, and the worst thing that we can do here is nothing. (I suppose that he also took a page from Jimmy Carter's failure in the hostage crisis on the dosomethingism ideal). I can't say that I agree with his decision to listen to the neoconservatives, but I seriously do not believe that he's a neoconservative. Neocons don't care much about a conservative social policy like he does. Neocon's are like libertarians who don't care about domestic policy (well, as long as the policy is good for business and the economy) and also believe in preemptive wars, as opposed to Nixon's foreign policy which revolved around diplomacy.
-Turkey
And Congress did declare war.
Uh, no, they didn't declare war. They gave the President the authority to use force, but stopped short of a true Declaration of War- the likes of which we have not seen since WWII
If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Correction Bush had more people vote against him than any other sitting President. Clinton was not a sitting President in 1992.