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??
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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."