Slashdot Mirror
WA Governor Recount Ends With 42-Vote Difference
Republican Dino Rossi came out on top of the gubernatorial recount in Washington state, beating Democrat Christine Gregoire by 42 votes. He had won the initial count by 261 votes. King County (where Seattle is) gave Gregoire a 245-vote swing. It's expected that the Democrats will call for a partial hand recount, which they would have to pay for (25 cents per vote), unless they end up winning the recount.
You're an idiot.
Well, there is a difference, on the *law* recognizes: it's the difference between a recount affirming the result, and overturning it. The law treats those two outcomes differently, as Vance said.
IRV is *not* the best fix, as it introduces possibilities for a candidate having a better chance at winning by receiving fewer votes. However, the Condorcet Method is very similar and is far more airtight than IRV.
No comment.
No, the Dems have not called for any specific recount yet. And even if it is only in particular locations, if it ends up overturning the result, then a mandatory statewide recount will follow. So there's really no serious problem here with a partial recount, because a partial recount will not change the result.
I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.
In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation. In fact, he made a personal phone call to the journalist who was beginning to uncover massive election fraud (in the hopes of winning a Pulitzer), and specifically requested the journalist stop investigating the matter.
In a senate race in Missouri a few years ago, the challenger, lost by a slim sympathy vote when the incumbent died during the race and his wife took his place. The wife replacing the husband in the middle of the race was probably illegal under Missouir law, but the Republican decided not to pursue the matter, citing that it would not be good for the state of Missouri to have the election process dragged through the mud.
The facts would seem to argue against your position that "they all do it."
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The Washingtong State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance says: "If Dino Rossi is ahead at the end of the day, he is the governor-elect, this is over, and she (Gregoire) needs to do the right thing, the gracious thing and the honorable thing and concede."
But if Gregoire is ahead at the end of the recount? "That's fundamentally different," Vance said.
Vance is also talking about how "...we will preserve all our options,...".
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews
Rather than crying about the Democrats, in this case, the Republicans should be joining with them and pooling their resources to pay for a state-wide hand recount.
But they aren't doing that.
Nor are they willing to say right now that they will accept whatever the results are.
And I find it hilarious that you are quoting NIXON about "the harm it would do to the nation". What's next? Quoting Clinton about morality?
Um, according to the numbers I've seen Tom Daschle won his senate seat in 1998 with 62% of the vote count. I doubt that's 500 votes, you might be thinking of the 2002 Senate race in which the Republican Candidate claimed that fraud had taken place, but wouldn't be proven by a recount, and thus declined to ask for one.
In the Kenney/Nixon election, there actually were lawsuits over alleged illegal practices, those lawsuits were lost, though some Republicans claim it was because of politically motivated judicial bias.
I'm not sure how the wife replacing the husband could itself be illegal unless the proper procedures for replacing a candidate weren't followed.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
In the Kennedy/Nixon election, Richard Nixon lost the vote under extremely suspect circumstances. He made the deliberate decision not to pursue because of the harm it would do to the nation.
Republicans persued (fruitless) recounts in about a dozen different states and dragged (fruitless) investigations in Illinois out for a year.
Nixon presented a public front of not challenging for the "good of the nation"(which you've obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker) but did everything in his power to challenge the results behind the scenes.
The wife replacing the husband in the middle of the race was probably illegal under Missouir law
She didn't replace him on the ballot. Ashcroft lost to a dead man. The (Republican I think) Governor just made it known that if Mel Carnahan won, he'd appoint Jean Carnahan in his place, which he did.
the Republican decided not to pursue the matter
What would he persue exactly?
I know they wouldn't, because they Didn't. Six years ago Tom Daschle won his senate seat by less than 500 votes, most of which were extremely suspect. His Republican challenger refused to drag the results out, saying that it would do more harm than good.
You're thinking of Thune's loss to Johnson and he *did* drag investigations out with allegations of massive fraud. And guess what? Nothing turned up.
And who can forget Bob Dornan who dragged out investigations of his narrow loss to Loretta Sanchez in 1996 for two years? Again, Republican alleged massive vote fraud and nothing materialized. And then Dornan got his ass smacked by Sanchez in 1998.
Basically, here's the pattern:
Republicans lose narrowly.
They allege massive vote fraud when it doesn't exist so as to taint the victory of their opponent.
They publicly say they're taking the high road and not persuing any legal options.
They privately persue any and all legal options.
They come up empty.