Redstate

BTW Sarasota is overwhelmingly registered republican. So the conspiracy to suppress and discard votes would have what effect ?

BTW Sarasota is overwhelmingly registered republican. So the conspiracy to suppress and discard votes would have what effect ?

But it seems pretty clear that people went to the polls, intending to vote in this race, and their preferences were not captured by the machines.

This is just typical dhimmiecrat whining over a loss.

None of the above is often a popular choice

It would be a really odd coincidence that in two adjacent counties, the race with a disproportionate undervote issue happened to be the race on the same computer screen as the governor's race, rather than being the same race in both counties.

Or it could mean that a certain percentage of voters are careless, or lazy - or perhaps a nasty primary in one of those races had something to do with it.

Just like in my neck of the woods, where they print referendum questions on the back of the ballot and easily 1/5 of the voters fail completely - in spite of the fact that such is the case EVERY SINGLE YEAR - to turn the stupid ballot over and fill-in the circles.

Or perhaps it's just that a Democrat lost a close election and so they're going to stomp their feet and whine about Undervotes™ the next 2-years.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Admittedly absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the completion and finality of elections is a cornerstone of our society. It does great damage to throw elections into the courts everytime someone doesn't like an outcome.

The people have spoken their voices have been heard. Its time to move on to the next election.

Jennings needs to swallow her pride, and admit that she lost a close election. It happens to the best of us.

Like Rob Simmons (R-CT-2), who lost to Joe Courtney (D) by 167 votes out of 242,459 cast, or 0.07%. Does anyone hear him whining about irregularities and going to court or trying to force a re-vote?

In a very close election, there are bound to be recounts, and each state has its laws regulating such things. But if the results are certified by state authorities after following state election laws, even if the difference is very small, the candidate with a slightly higher vote total goes to Congress, and the other candidate finds other employment for two years.

There are places where the loser of a close election can stage mass-protests and block the government and plan a coup d'etat. But Sarasota isn't Mexico, and Jennings needs to stop taking lessons from Lopez Obrador.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

But I think at some point you are just too stupid to vote. Voting is only about 1/10th as difficult as tying your shoes as it is, and that is apparently still too difficult for some. There's nothing we can do to make it completely fool proof. It seems that there's a new and improved fool born every day.

I got an idea... if you really care about your vote being tabulated, why not be careful and try to follow the instructions when you vote? If you don't care enough to do that, why don't you either 1) skip the whole voting scene, or 2) go ahead and screw up your ballot and be happy about it. It's a novel idea, I know, but it could work.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Seriously.

And I'm going to share something with you, that way up in Philly you won't hear about: This sort of thing happens in some county most election cycles. A friend in Leon County once ranted to me about it for months. In 2004, a lot of what one would expect to be Bush votes were missing in Polk County, which is, I hate to share this with you, where both Kerry and Castor really got punished.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'm just glad that House control doesn't depend on this one, as opposed to the recount currently going on in a PA House district.

Why is it always Florida?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Granting your argument - such as it is - for the moment, your position is therefore that "poor ballot design" is now a criteria by which Congress or the courts should de-certify an the results election and order a ReVote™.

Not fraud.

Not malfunction.

But "poor ballot design".

Just so we're clear.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

The "criteria by which Congress or the courts should de-certify an the results election and order a ReVote™" is a Democratic loss, which obviously is itslf evidence of some kind of accident or fraud.

we must guard against anything that upsets the natural order of things. The Earth goes around the Sun; The Sun rises in the East; The Democrats govern America; etc. It's easy once you get the hang of it.

John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.

I said nothing about whether there should be any legal or political remedies here. I think the only real recourse here is with the House itself under Art I, sec 5 ("Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members"), and as a practical matter the Dems aren't going to start off this term by not-seating Buchanan.

If I'll concede that not every error has a full remedy, will you concede that there were problems here?

will you concede that there were problems here?

Why should I?

As there is no evidence of fraud or malfunction, I assume you think that because there were a large number of "undervotes" in Sarasota therefore "there were problems". I dissent.

A whole lot of people in a GOP-dominated county decided to not vote for one office in an election where the DEM nominee wasn't particularly likeable and the GOP nominee was the survivor of a very nasty primary that featured 4 candidates from that very same county.

Or, some voters perhaps wanted to vote for one or the other of these people but were in too big a hurry to finish their once-every-two-year civic duty to check to see if there was an office they may have missed.

Frankly, I'm not seeing a problem here.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Because of the oddities of the race, it is pretty clear that the undercount is a result of bad ballot design. Apparently the Congressional district is comprised of a number of other districts and only in the district in which the smaller subset ran the 13th district race on the same page as the governor's race was there such a large undercount. Because the other districts presumably have similar compositions, it doesn't follow that there were ideological reasons for the undervotes. It makes more sense that because that race was the only race/set of races (like member at large type races) which was not on its own page, that voters missed the race.

All that being said, it also doesn't follow that if the undervotes had been counted, the democrat would have won the election. It is more reasonable to assume that the undervotes would be statistically similar to those cast, and because of the margin of victory, would not have altered the course of the election.

Why Floridians can't consistently design good ballots is a good question. Especially as an electronic voting machine doesn't have any extra costs associated with creating another ballot page. Why Democrats can't admit to defeat is an even better question.

Overwhelming "problems" surfaced during the 2006 mid-terms. It is simply unconscionable that the most advanced nation on the face of the planet would even consider conducting elections that were fraught with so many "problems."

However, poor ballot design was not a "real problem." The same can also be said for electronic voting machines. There's no credible evidence to the contrary.

The "problems" encountered during the 2006 mid-terms were "exactly the same problems" that have plagued every national election since 1976, and they are as follows:
• Uninformed Electorate
• Misinformed Electorate
• Uneducated Electorate
• Apathetic Electorate
• Or, just too dang lazy to go to the polls, and apparently, unwilling to fulfill one's civic responsibility.

Did I say, "Simply Unconscionable?"

***

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

otherwise, you are right or you are wrong. The race is over, the votes were counted, there was no malfeasance. Nothing else matters vis-a-vie this race.

After that, if the people in Florida have a problem with the way their morons design the ballots, they should throw the morons out. The rest of the nation shouldn't be dragged into it with threats of Congress refusing to seat duly elected representatives. That's just plain wrong.

In Maryland, we have touch screen machines. And there were a lot of races on a single screen. It is not that difficult to figure out how it works. This sounds like another, "I couldn't understand the ballot" issue. That is not an excuse. If they voted for someone and their vote wasn't recorded, that would be a concern. If they didn't vote for someone, it isn't an issue regardless of why they didn't vote for someone. Lack of being able to figure out how to vote for each race is not an excuse.

The MD ballot is pretty consistent about the way it presents things. The type is big and friendly, and breaks according to the space required for the particular race. As I recall, they did pretty much break between National, State, and Local races by pages, whereas the ballot in question did not. If you setup an expectation with regard to layout, and then break that expectation, it isn't unreasonable to expect people to miss things. Which raises the question of why would you want them to miss things. This is elementary design work for any type of printing/publishing work, and one expects more of professionals. In a former life I was a Desktop Publisher, and was always amazed at the accolades I got for having clear design layout. I'm not the artistic type. :)

What I didn't care for in the MD ballot was their "summations" of proposed amendments as opposed to presenting the actual language for the amendment on the ballot. Or the language as it would look if the amendment were passed if that would be clearer. Again, since no trees are killed or paid for in the manufacture of electronic ballots, I see no reason not to include the full language, just as I see no reason not to have each race on a page if there is any question of voter confusion.

Member for
12 min 58 sec

Well let's see:
1) Recount moves a grand total of one vote
2) Audit finds the machines work perfectly
3) No evidence of fraud, abuse or malfeasance
4) All vote counts say Jennings lost

But because some Dartmouth professor - who admits there are no problems with the machines and only a problem with "poor ballot design" - sez Jennings "would have won", based on what we have no idea, we should therefore throw-out the results of the election and ReVote™

Good Lord, why can't you people ever admit you've lost a close election and move on to next year?

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Well let's see:

1) Cite this please. (or, rather, as you like to say "based on what we have no idea" Certainly not any rigorous study: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~herron/cd13.pdf)
2) The point of the post at TPM was to question whether machines or ballot design were at fault. Better reading comprehension skills, please.
3) Didn't claim any.
4) You mean vote counts based on a flawed ballot?

Nice dig at the pointy-headed perfesser, though. Your hostility to education is noted.

1) Do you own Google search. Or read any of the links in the original piece. Oh, and you and TPM might want to re-read section 4 - and especially section 4.3 - of Herron's report. You know, the part about the limitations of using their own projections.
2) Did I refer to the TPM article at all? Better reading comprehension skills, please.
3) Did I say you did? Better reading comprehension skills, please.
4) Yes, precisely.

My hostility to education? Funny, that.

Your inability to read snark is noted as well.

Try again. The clock is ticking.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

1) I'll take that as a "none offered"
2) That was the focus of my original post. How did you know how to respond?
3) Point taken. Did anybody?
4) So your position is that she lost based on a flawed ballot. Maybe you shouldn't be so dismissive of the professor. at least he admits his projections may be limited. section 4.3, right?

1) The data is in linked pieces. Read. Them. Yourself.
2) The entirety of your original post was one line that linked another piece. Forgive me for an inability to read your mind through the tin-foil hat.
3) I was skipping to the end - sorry you couldn't figure that out.
4) My position is nothing of the sort.

My position is:
1) Jennings lost
2) The "flaws" in the ballot may have indeed contributed to her loss
3) Better luck in 2008

And your reading comp still stinks - I was not dismissive of the professor. I am dismissive of the Jennings legal team who wishes to use (Lies, Damn Lies, and ...) Statistics to justify a ReVote™ or (get this) the overturning of the result of a legally decided election.

Adios.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Gotta pick up the boy at day care. Let me close this discussion by noting that the Professor has backed up his argument, limited though it may be. You, on the other hand have offered -- wait for it -- "do your own Google search." Let's just say you have failed to persuade me.

...you weren't the one who needed to be persuaded.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

A Wikipedia article you had just edited. Did you happen notice that the source you utilized had a slant ? a significant bias ? was the unashamed publisher of barking moonbat propaganda ?

Heres the frontpage

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/

Check the stories tell me if you think they give a hoot about the truth of the matter any matter ?

Of course there is what the websites advertisers think of the readers. Apparently they think the person that reads the site will also read "Mind Wars Brain science goes to war". Perhaps they can add tinfoil hats to their online merchandise.