[politics] Chutzpah

[holzman_tweed]

For those who don't know, chuztpah used to be defined as the quality that allows one to kill one's parents and then beg the court for mercy on the grounds that one is an orphan.

Republican crybaby Dino Rossi has updated the definition.

For those who don't recall, Washington state's gubenatorial race took a long time to count and originally came up with the Republican winning by less than 1%. Long story short, the Republicans spent their time arguing that the result should stand, the Democrats pointed out legitimtely cast votes that were not counted.

For years now, we've been hearing Republicans tell us how terrible it was that we wanted a recount in Florida. I don't think we ever asked for a do-over.

Comments

[unclevlad.livejournal.com]

Ok, I can understand there being concern with the results that close. But what would a new election do? What happens if the next time Dino wins by some piddling margin? Do they keep going back to the polls until there is a winner by a certain margin? Elections are very expensive - not just the stupid amounts of money the candidates and others spend, but the sheer mechanincs of polling places and ballot generation and counting and people having to take time off from their other responsibilities and ...

Sometimes, elections are very close. Sometimes they are not. That is a part of the system.

As an aside, that direct representation parlimentary thing keeps looking better and better.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

My favorite example is World.com demanding a refund of the taxes it paid on the nonexistent profits it was declaring.

Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

I have not problem with recounts. But I think the trouble here is that the recounts are not being done in EVERY county of the state. They are being done in targeted counties that the democrats feel they are strongest. This is plan wrong. This is HUNTING for more votes for you guy and NOT tring to make every vote count. Making every vote count means makeing EVERY vote count including those for the Republicans. That mean targeted county recounts is a crimanal activity, bias by design and undermines true election process. Recounts should only happen if every county is recounted with the same level of effort.

In Florida the Democrats called for targeted county recounts. Again they DIDN'T want every vote to count. What they wanted was to find more of their votes. The same took place this year in Ohio.

Let us flip the coin. How would you feel about recounts ONLY in republican strong counties? Would you think that was fair?

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

You don't know what you are talking about.

The automatic recount is mandated by law, and what the Democrats wanted have nothing to do with it. The manual recount, the one the Democrats asked for, was state-wide.

Florida state law does not provide a way to ask for a state-wide recount. Florida recounts are triggered by the county results, not the statewide results.

Re: Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

I was refering to the recount in both Ohio and Florida in which certain counties that were not Democratic strongholds were avoided in the recount.

"November 15: After considering submissions from counties still conducting recounts, Secretary of State Harris indicates that she will not consider further returns from those counties"

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ZEtC2RW4IQoJ:www.ohiodems.org/index.php%3Fdisplay%3DReleaseDetails%26id%3D192686+Democrat+call+for+recount+ohio&hl=en

"You can limit the recount to specific precincts."

http://www.florida2000election.com/sections/3.htm

"The four counties he selected (Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia) are overwhelmingly Democrat counties and constitute nearly 25% of Florida's six million ballots."

Som manybe you don't know what you are talking about.

Also consider in Ohio the democrats are calling that the vote was bad because people didn't have "electronic voting machines" while in the same breath they called for the hand vote count instead of the machine count because it is "more accurate"....

So who is digging for votes?

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

I don't know how to make this any clearer: The reason the Democrats asked for manual recounts in four counties in Florida is because asking for manual recounts by county is the one and only way Florida State Law allows you to ask for a recount. There is no such thing in Florida State Law as asking for a state-wide recount.

I posted a link to the law that defines how recounts are done in Florida. Please read it.

Also consider in Ohio the democrats are calling that the vote was bad because people didn't have "electronic voting machines" while in the same breath they called for the hand vote count instead of the machine count because it is "more accurate"....

The only reference to Ohio and electronic voting machines I found in your cited pages is:

"No Ohio County used Diebold Electronic Voting Machines (See Press Release Below) Ohio did not use modern electronic voting machines in this election. Six counties use an older form of electronic voting, which has a means of verifying the accuracy of the vote. In 69 Ohio Counties, punch card ballots were used."

Since this statement makes no value judgement on "electronic voting machines," I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

I know that it has been pointed out that a number of precints had far too few voting machines to process the number of people who came out to vote.

So who is digging for votes?

Not the Democrats. In Ohio, they're not even the ones who asked for a recount -- the Green and Libertarian candidates did, and they've criticized the Democrats for not supporting a recount more strongly.

You still don't have your facts straight.

Re: Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

As for Florida do you REALLY think that they picked the 4 counties base on getting every vote count and these 4 place just HAPPENED to be the four with the greatest number of democrats? Common you can't be THAT blind.

Why didn't they pick the 2 top democrat counties and the top 2 republican counties? The answer is easy THEY WERE HUNTING FOR DEMOCRATIC VOTES, pure and simple.

Some interesting links:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Washington%20Governor%20Discrepancy

"Republicans prodded election officials to explain why the list appeared to have about 3,500 fewer names than the number of votes that were actually tallied."

" Ohio elections boards on Monday revealed various plans for handling new recount requests by Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign that range"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002111416_kingcount07m.html

"Republican Dino Rossi led Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes statewide in the initial count and by 42 votes after a machine recount. Democrats have requested, and are paying for, a manual recount."

This one I find interesting since you complained on how the republican refuse to accept the loss after the recount. Why then did the democrats refuse to accept the loss after the machine recount?

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

If you ever do decide to click the link and read the Florida law about asking for manual recounts, you will see the following:

(2)(a) If the second set of unofficial returns pursuant to s. 102.141 indicates that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by between one-quarter and one-half of a percent of the votes cast for such office,... any such candidate, the political party of such candidate, or any political committee that supports or opposes such ballot measure is entitled to a manual recount of the overvotes and undervotes cast in the entire geographic jurisdiction of such office or ballot measure, provided that a request for a manual recount is made by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election.

Florida state law is structured such that the quantum of geographic jurisdiction is the county.

Florida state law only permits asking for a recount in a given county if the vote was with .25-.5%. If the vote wasn't that close in counties with a Republican majority, then the Democrats couldn't ask for a recount there even if they wanted to. Of course, if the vote was that close in Republican counties, Republicans could have asked for recounts in those counties.

The bottom line is, if you think a recount should be done state wide rather than by county, then your quarrel is with the Florida state legislature, not the Democratic party.

"Republicans prodded election officials to explain why the list appeared to have about 3,500 fewer names than the number of votes that were actually tallied."

The very next paragraph says:

In a response that all but said, "Settle down!" county officials stressed the list was preliminary, noting that records of voters who cast certain write-in ballots and people who wanted their addresses kept confidential still had to be reconciled with election data.

The article goes on to note that Republican Secretary of State Sam Reed said, "We have no reason to believe the votes were not properly cast."

So I'm unclear on what you find interesting here.

"Republican Dino Rossi led Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes statewide in the initial count and by 42 votes after a machine recount. Democrats have requested, and are paying for, a manual recount."

This one I find interesting since you complained on how the republican refuse to accept the loss after the recount. Why then did the democrats refuse to accept the loss after the machine recount?

Washington state law provides for an mandatory automatic recount and a requestable manual recount. Washington state law also states that a vote may not be recounted more than twice. Nothing in Washington law provides for redoing the election because the loser didn't like losing.

The bottom line is that in Washington, the Democrats have done exactly what the law permits and the Republicans are asking for something the law does not permit.

Re: Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Yes and when the machine recount was done automatically the democrats could have done what you complained about the republicans not doing.. that is accept the automatic recount. Which they didn't... why because their person didn't win. So they push for the manual recount... and now you think the republicans should accept defeat... why BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT WON. And you DON"T see the double standard?!

Wow...

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Washington state law provides for two recounts, one automatic, one manual and final. The Republicans should accept defeat because the process has now been exhausted.

Single standard.

If Rossi had won the manual recount, the Democrats would not be calling for a do-over.

I still don't know how I can be clearer.

Re: Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

Do you really beleave that is they had won the machine recount that they would have also asked for the hand recount? Common on man! Just like in Florida their ONLY goal was to win just the same as the republicans and I can assure you that if they had lost the hand recount they would have also ask for a re-vote. Just like in Floridia they most like didn't shade a tear for the fact that their recount didn't include republican strong counties. And in Ohio they didn't count the republican slash tires and headquarters broken into as voteing illregularties.

Face the fact for ONCE... Both parties are interested in one thing and one thing ONLY winning. THey will both do ANYTHING legally possable to win and somewtimes a few shading things. The democrats are no more interested in making "every vote count" then the republicans are. They are both interested in making very one of their votes count. From the efforts to stop recounts when the republicans had won to the democrats tring to throw out votes from the military each of these are attempt to win and NOT some great goal of making every vote count.

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

One last time. The automatic recount is not final unless losing party asks for and is willing to pay for a manual recount. If the Republicans had lost the automatic recount and asked for a manual recount, I'd have no problem with that.

The manual recount is final. If the Democrats had lost the manual recount and wanted to re-vote, I'd be dinging them for it.

Single standard.

I can assure you that if they had lost the hand recount they would have also ask for a re-vote.

Bullshit. Gore didn't ask for a re-vote. Kerry didn't ask for a re-vote. Not one Democrat who lost has asked for a re-vote, no matter how close the vote.

Face the fact for ONCE.

From your first post, your facts have been WRONG.
You don't have your facts right in your last paragraph, either, but I'm done doing your homework for you.

I'm out of patience, Kirk. I'm done with you.

Re: Recount

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

The trouble is you are hiding behind the law while I am talking about intentions. For example Bush legallly won in 2000. That if the facts. Facts are also that BOTH parties are only interested in getting THEIR vote counted. And thusly the democrats are NO better then the republicans in this matter.

PS: It is also the law that one can file a law suit. So the republicans in Washington state are also following the law.

Sorry your such a democratic drone.

Re: Recount

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Good bye, Kirk. If you ever read my info page you will understand why you will no longer be posting to my livejournal.

Sorry

[hunterkirk.livejournal.com]

PS: I disagree with the idea of redo elections. But I do agree with REAL recounting of votes in EVERY county of that state.

[salsuginous.livejournal.com]

As someone living in this state and being quite upset about everything...I just don't know how I feel. On one hand, I have some real issues with suddenly counting conveniently found in (of course!) King County which is going to primarily be democratic. I'm a bit suspect. OTOH, I do think everyone's vote should be counting. OTOH, if there was a much bigger difference in who had won--those ballots would have never been counted.

I'm concerned that Gregorie's margin is even LESS than Rossi's first count. I have no faith that these numbers are the correct ones and that there wasn't human error or tampering. It bothers me that poll workers were filling in bubbles that weren't correctly filled in and assuming what a voter meant. (THAT offends me most of all.) I'm mad that the Gregorie camp says has the chutzpah to say that "it would be 'irresponsible' to spend taxpayer money on a new election just because one party doesn't like the outcome of the first one" AFTER the voters have to pony up $700,000 for the recount (although it's much cheater than the $4 million for a new election). It's not like I was hot over Rossi or that I'm defending him...I'm fairly yucked by the Republican party as well.

Most of all, I think there are a lot of people in this state who have lost faith in the system, think the worst about both parties and how elections are run. Both candidates (imo) were crap and now there is a lot of fussing and fighting over it and both parties acting like a bunch of whiny babies. I think it's sad that not only do we have to deal with people thinking that the president stole the election and feeling disenfranchised, it also is happening on a local level.

This thing isn't over by a long shot. Any voter can contest the election within 10 days of certification, and you betcha it's gonna happen. I wouldn't doubt it if the Republicans do it too.

This just sucks.

[salsuginous.livejournal.com]

Whoops! I meant "Gregoire" not "Gregorie"

[dreamingcrow.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, holzman, ended up over here after looking up some information from silme's journal and felt like replying, since I'm also a WA native. - Liss)

I can understand the upset and anger. I think this has done more to destroy any remaining faith in politics in Washington than the 2000 election did elsewhere. However...

I'm mad that the Gregorie camp says has the chutzpah to say that "it would be 'irresponsible' to spend taxpayer money on a new election just because one party doesn't like the outcome of the first one" AFTER the voters have to pony up $700,000 for the recount (although it's much cheater than the $4 million for a new election).

I have a major quibble with this statement. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY ponied up that money. As state law allows, they put up their own money to pay for the hand recount. Of course, if it wound up in their favor, as it did, they didn't have to pay for it.

I'm just sick of the whole damn thing. At first, I considered the possibility of a new vote, but I've came over to my husband's point of view. As he says, there is no proof of WIDESPREAD voter fraud. As such, ::sigh:: a completely new vote is not indicated. This doesn't even begin to address the point of how different and completely nasty a new election would be.

Washington, just like all the other states in the union, desperately needs a complete overhaul of its election system.