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."
stop running for president, and help the Democratic campaign.
Why? I would never have voted for Kerry. I might have voted for Badnarik (too young to be eligible). The Democratic philosophy is as different from the Libertarian one as it is from the Republican -- so much so that I find myself more or less half-libertarian and half-Republican, but nowhere near Democratic.
You may as well say they should help the Republican campaign; the two seem to me ideologically closer, Bush himself notwithstanding.
Bush hasn't won yet. The Electoral College hasn't voted. Theoretically, if some electors didn't vote the way they were asked to, then Kerry could win.
Kerry felt that it was not worth for him pursuing his victory (because of the odds), so he conceded. That doesn't prevent him winning through others' efforts.
I've been listening to Air America lately - and mostly what I hear is disgruntled people not wanting to believe that Bush won. The conspiracy theories out there are amazing!
So what happens if the FIRST recount doesn't make Mr. Kerry President? Do we ask for ANOTHER recount ala 2000? 100K votes ain't that close folks!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Agreed. Moreover, I've been hearing too many theories about how voters were forced, deceived or generally brainwashed into voting for Bush. I've heard similar gripes about 'stupid' vs. 'smart', and of course seen the standard IQ by state chart.
Guess what, kids: sometimes in a democracy, other people win. This is what most of the American voters wanted, and that's the way it works.
Disclaimer: Kerry voter.
The New Hampshire recount will really be the most interesting one. They used the Diebold machines, there was a large difference in the exit polls & the actual votes, and Kerry already won it (so right-wingers won't object to it on partisan grounds). Moderates and all concerned about evoting should watch that state closely. Partisans should also watch it, as it could be the first domino for the states where the outcome may actually change things. If anyone contests the New Hampshire recount, quietly chuckle that they don't care about voting & just care about their man. Kerry fans might protest because he did win & Bush fans might object in anticipation of those other states.
because like I said before the ballots that have the highest fault rate are in highly democratic areas. The repulbican areas have ballots with lower margins of error / no paper trails and therefore recounts there would have less of an impact. PS - Great Grandparent post is just wrong - Ohio uses punch card ballots for the most part. Whomever modded it "informative" needs to check thier facts first next time.
Face it, BUSH WON.
And I am thankful.
You may not like it
but I do.
changing ohio STILL won't win it for Kerry.
Good.
I however would like to know that the votes were counted right. I like Bush being in office, but fair voting is more important than which politician holds the office.
It's not just rabid Kerryists that want the recounts, and acting like a rabid Bushist doesn't help your argument any. The point here is not who won, but how fairly.
Should the votes be recounted because the Libertarians or Greens think they may win? No.
Should the votes be recounted because Kerry may have won, and not Bush? Er, I doubt it, but maybe.
Should the votes be recounted as a check on how well the new computerized systems tallied the votes? Definitely.
I really don't think that the point is to change the out come of the election. I mean, sure, that may be one of their hopes, but they must realize that it probally won't happen.
They are just most likely making sure that every vote counts. That was one of the things that the democrats were pushing, that every vote counts, so why not accualy count them? We have a while until 13 Dec.
most libertarian and green voters lean closer to the dems
That's why there are separate parties: so D-like libertarians like a lot of Slashdot and R-like libertarians like myself can have a party that's a lot closer to our common beliefs instead of being shuffled off into the Democratic and Republican parties. The libertarian philosophy is not part of the linear left/right spectrum (that incidentally dates from the French Revolution, where there were about 3 major ideological factions, and the third was centrist).
Besides, I didn't consider Kerry that good a candidate, even if I did agree with the Democratic platform. Given the choice between Kerry and Badnarik, I would've undoubtedly chosen Badnarik. There's enough difference in philosophy that allows me to agree with the latter but not the former. I don't think it's fair for them to endorse Kerry.
On the other hand, I do agree that the third parties should concentrate first on local elections, where parties matter less and it's easier to find an independent (or barely partisan) candidate who fits the third-party ideology better; yet they should keep running some presidential candidate to keep their representation up.
Well, if you think libertarians like Bush, then you're beyond all reason.
Regardless, neither party is doing this to help Kerry. They're doing it because many of us don't have a lot of faith in the election "system" in the United States. If this helps improve the process, it's worth a thousand times what they're spending to do it.
Kerry lost too. The Democrats have just a bit more cash than the Libs or the Greens, why aren't they the ones paying for this?
As someone who's voted Libertarian in the past two presidential elections, it seems like a terrible waste of limited party funds to do this. Why not spend that money toward winning more local elections?
He's smart enough to not want the Democratic Party to look like a bunch of sore losers two elections in a row.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
It could also be related to maintaining ballot status, which exempts a party from needing to collect massive numbers of signatures if they got X% in the previous election.
And you are the reason the democrats weren't able to win. Calling the otherside stupid isn't the best way to sway their opinion.
> It could even tip the state (and thus the election) from Bush to Kerry.
Statistically, no, it couldn't. In fantasy fiction, it could, but in real life,
with Bush leading by over a hundred thousand votes, it ain't gonna happen. For
Gore in Florida in 2000, trailing by about a thousand votes, the recount was a
bit of a longshot, although it was not beyond the realm of possibility that it
could, against the odds, pan out -- but here, the margin is plainly way too
large. (Kerry knew this, presumably, which is why he conceded.) Do all the
recounts you want. Recount from now till inauguration day if you like -- but
don't hold your breath waiting for any big announcements reversing the outcome.
130 thousand votes is close, yes, but it's not so razor thin that a recount
has any realistic chance to alter the outcome. The counting process just
isn't as sloppy as that. (Yes, there are ballots that weren't counted, but
statistically they aren't going to deviate as wildly as all that from the
rest. Even if 100% of them are valid and countable, and even if there are
250 thousand of them outstanding (the highest, most optimistic estimates for
the Dems; the Blackwell figure of 175 thousand is probably much closer), and,
indeed, even if Kerry gets a wildly unlikely 70% of those 250 thousand (in
Ohio, where it is very unlikely for either party to top 60%), Bush would
still have a comfortable enough margin of victory to be confident of the
outcome of any recount (at least, any recount observed by representatives
from both parties).)
I'm all for the hand recounts. They will verify what we already know.
(What we do not know is what would have happened if it hadn't rained all day
statewide. There are always unknowns in life.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I'm not so sure. Lieberman didn't stand up and challenge the election, and he was on the ticket with Gore.
Erm. Errr. I can't see your comment being any less idiotic.
"Your side is stupid because you called the other side stupid"
Right.
Libritarians ally themselves with Republicans on in the sence that there are still many Paleo-cons out there. Bush is anything but a Paleocon, he is a neocon. Lets look.
Libritarians hate anything that has to do with making the government bigger. Well lets look, the largest deficit(number not % of GDP, but still huge) in history.
Libritarians are generally about liberty and human(negitive) rights. Bush and his new appointment to Attorny General think human rights are up for discussion(ala Gitmo, Abu Grab). The Patiot Act certianly doesn't make us libritarians happy campers.
Lets see, faith based inititives, i.e funding churches do create social programs, which is no better then when the government does it.
Heck in his 2003 budget, he proposed and increase in NEA funding, which is a hot button issue for palocons and libritarians.
Libritarians see the purpose of the Military for defence, not nation building or premtive/preventive war. Even Bush said in 2000 that he didn't believe in nation building.
Ultimately the only thing that Bush has done right by libritarians is cutting taxes, but all the other stuff he has done soooo out weighs that.
I have been a libritarian for as long as I have been interested in politics. I supported and worked for campains in 1994 to put the conservatives in control of the house and senate. Heck I even voted for Bush the first time around. The fact of the matter for me is, Bush's performance has been anything but remotely close to "libritarian" ideals. This year I voted for Kerry, because at least with Kerry we would have dead lock, and if 1994-2000 is any measure, it was the only chance to stall the growth of government.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
If the recount goes kerry's way (and I doubt they'll find 130K votes) he will be the president, Ill have no complaints about it (I voted 3rd Party). What I will love to see is the left embrace their guy and ignore the partisan crap they have been spewing for four years..
(Please note I didn't call all Republican voters idiots, just ones who voted for them because they promised to (and did) lower taxes. Lowering taxes and raising spending is worse than raising taxes and raising spending.)
You are correct, the Republican party has managed to get as far away as possible from the Libertarian party, very very recently. Which is, of course, why the LP is asking for a recount of Ohio...they disagree with Kerry on 50% of his platform, but they disagree nearly completely with Bush.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I believe in smaller government, less taxes, less intervention in people's lives (at home and abroad) by the government.
Republicans have shown themselves to be the opposite of that.
One theory is that the Republicans are trying to reduce the entitlement programs (like Medicare) by growing them (and other government spending) in an uncontrollable fashion while cutting taxes, to the point where force cutbacks across the board become mandatory. I doubt that it is intentional. I think that the Republicans are just incompetent fiscal managers.
When has Bush ever been held responsible? When has he ever admitted to a mistake? Was he held responsible for ignoring warnings about Osama bin Laden being determined to strike inside the United States? Was he held accountable for not planning the occupation of Iraq? Has he been held accountable for the massive deficit caused by his tax cuts? Has he been held accountable for the massive cockup of Falluja (when we first went in)? Quite the contrary, he's actually managed to capitalize on these errors.
Maybe I'm completely wrong about Bush being bad for the nation... all I can say is, check back in a few years, and if he's fucked up completely (like he's done the first four years) don't say we didn't warn you.
I'm not sure it matters anymore. The problem is, democracy depends on an informed public making decisions, but the public isn't informed, and doesn't want to be informed.
And you are the reason the democrats weren't able to win. Calling the otherside stupid isn't the best way to sway their opinion.
Because it's not like anybody on the right-wing ever calls us stupid or cowards or anything like that. Oh wait....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Even if he did win Ohio Kerry still would have lost the popular vote... Sure he would have one the electorial college but... Wouldn't that be stealing the electon on a technicality?
WTF? Why is it that we make immigrants learn and understand the electoral process before they can become naturalized citizens, but people who were born in this country have no such requirement?
Start here Article II Section I
Some machine overcounted Cobb by a bunch of votes. This was later fixed.
Well, that's reassuring!
It's funny how often people say such things, and seem to expect that it will calm the discussion. But such things should tell you something about how many problems there are in the voting system.
All the "machine error" and "user error" reports coming from Ohio just tell me that their voting system (using the term lightly) is so screwed up that no thoughtful person would expect that the results are accurate to within a few million votes.
Funny thing is, American-made electronic voting equipment is being used in several other countries, where they demand full auditing and accountability. American companies know full well how to build such equipment. If our own elections don't use the good equipment, we should have strong suspicions about the reasons. And it's not likely that stupidity or incompetence explains it. There is a lot at stake in an election, and there are strong motives for doctoring the results. If there's a way to do it, most of the candidates will attempt it.
Of course, the two major parties both have long histories of voting fraud. So the Ohio results could be off by millions in either direction.
We have a lot of work to do before American elections can be trusted.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I think the rumours alone warrant a recount. If only just to disprove them. The fact that nobody seems to be interested in disproving what are very serious allegations is more worrysome then any outcome of the election.
Jilles
What would happen if it turned out Kerry won?
Suddenly, the Democratic support for abolishing the electoral college, which, in the 2000 election permitted Bush to win despite Gore carrying a majority of the popular vote, would vanish in a puff of smoke.
And it would be the Republicans complaining because a mere 60,000 vote switch in Ohio gave Kerry the presidency through the electoral college system despite Bush having won the popular vote by over 3 million.
It would be hilarious to watch as strident principled Democrats fell silent while the vocal Republicans would begin attacking positions that they themselves previously held onto with great fervor.
As if the whole thing weren't farcical enough already.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Besides, changing ohio STILL won't win it for Kerry.
According to the final tallies at http://www.electoral-vote.com/, Kerry currently has 252 EVs, Bush 286. Flip Ohio's 20 votes- and Kerry has 272 Evs to Bush's 266. Thus Kerry will win. So sorry- you're wrong- changing Ohio WOULD win it for Kerry. Of course, the FIRST count in Ohio isn't done yet (absentee and provisional ballots legally will be able to be counted tomorrow), so we'll have more data then.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Kerry was never 10 pts up in the NH polls except for early last spring. Same for Ohio and Florida. The exit polls had Kerry up, but the state-by-state pre-election polls were remarkably accurate across the US. This suggests that the exit polls were badly flawed.
BTW, I voted for Kerry.
FreeSpeech.org
And then there's the situation with the provisional ballots.
See Just count the ballots at the back of the bus.
I was genuinely wondering if there's a way for the e-voting machine manufacturers to reveal the exact code that was used on the physical voting machines. This could put to sleep quite a bit of the often-unpleasant debating going around all over the world (apart from /., of course).
-- rxMx --
Love all, Trust few, Follow one.