Support NeoGAF

[MC Safety]

On the other hand, your attitude is no better as it fails utterly in the face of an *actual* attempt to hijack an election. The ability to challenge the validity of an election is vital. Close elections will always breed questioning of their validity.

I think the only disturbing trend I've seen lately is that of considering as tight a margin as 3-4% of the popular vote a 'decicive margin.' Elections being essentially polls where participaction is not mandated, that seems like if anything a razor thin margin to me, and it's sad that such an important election was so close.

Now you're arguing semantics. By achieving more than 270 electoral votes, Bush won decisively.

Anyway. I expect this crying foul will become the rule, not the exception, unless there's an outright landslide. My sincere hope is that violence never enters into the equation.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

As a student of history, I am unnerved by this recent trend of crying foul and seeking to remove the legitimacy of elections. It's not about looking like ass. It's about the smooth and peaceful transition from government to government. Take that away -- or erode it bit by bit -- and the United States has lost something precious.

Sure. Which is why it's best to bring up supposed irregularities, get things straightened out, and hopefully not have that particular problem with the next election. Letting doubts fester unresearched would do more to remove legitimacy I think. Make the voting process accurate and transparent, and we won't need to have situations like in Washington where there were 4 counts with greatly differing numbers each time.

LOL, you can't 'unconcede' an election.

Gore did.

 

[XS+]

It drives his base to orgasm, and as the 2004 election proved, your base is all that matters.

The difference being, John Kerry, for pure expediency, engaged in political maneuvering of a mendacious vein, flouting the very principles his supposed base supports. John Kerry, loathe to be identified as a liberal, reflexively protested any suggestion that he was a progressive, distancing himself from the core underpinnings of the Democratic party. George W. Bush embraced his conservative idenity, pushing a radically conservative agenda that, albeit abhorrent, was well aligned with the values of his base. Here, there is an unmistakable distinction to be highlighted. Never once did John Kerry receive the tag of "liberal" with open arms. He refused any opportunity to define his agenda along unambiguously liberal lines, choosing instead to position himself as a moderate, a centrist absent any definable political constitution.

 

[XS+]

Now you're arguing semantics. By achieving more than 270 electoral votes, Bush won decisively.

Anyway. I expect this crying foul will become the rule, not the exception, unless there's an outright landslide. My sincere hope is that violence never enters into the equation.

If those votes were achieved through duplicitous means, his win should have doubt cast upon it. What part of that escapes your narrow grasp of the situation at hand?

 

[MC Safety]

If those votes were achieved through duplicitous means, his win should have doubt cast upon it. What part of that escapes your narrow grasp of the situation at hand?

Haha. Me am to dum to understand your american politics!

 

[Shinobi]

The Democratic party is gutless pack of vacillaitng capitulators. Nothing will come of this, despite the naked machinations of the Republican party in their Nov 2. victory. The people will get shafted -- again -- and George W. Bush will continue to smugly send young men and women to die for the pockets of his benefactors. That John Kerry was even nominated over Howard Dean is enough for me to not give two sh*ts. The base deserves this defeat.

Heh, not much I disagree with there...Democrats already showed themselves to be gaping ass pussies after the 2000 election, and nothing I've seen since has changed that image.

 

[Santo]

The difference being, John Kerry, for pure expediency, engaged in political maneuvering of a mendacious vein, flouting the very principles his supposed base supports. John Kerry, loathe to be identified as a liberal, reflexively protested any suggestion that he was a progressive, distancing himself from the core underpinnings of the Democratic party. George W. Bush embraced his conservative idenity, pushing a radically conservative agenda that, albeit abhorrent, was well aligned with the values of his base. Here, there is an unmistakable distinction to be highlighted. Never once did John Kerry receive the tag of "liberal" with open arms. He refused any opportunity to define his agenda along unambiguously liberal lines, choosing instead to position himself as a moderate, a centrist absent any definable political constitution.

I love how you talk with big words but make little sense at all.

Oh and GWB is a neo-conservative, he isn't aligned with his base at all, he's the far far far right and FEW people in his party actually share the same values as he does. But that's cool how you just throw around tags and think they mean anything.

 

[XS+]

I love how you talk with big words but make little sense at all.

Oh and GWB is a neo-conservative, he isn't aligned with his base at all, he's the far far far right and FEW people in his party actually share the same values as he does. But that's cool how you just throw around tags and think they mean anything.

Bush isn't out of step with his base. He has sated the cravings of a base longing for one to champion their cultural revolution. It is you, apparently, who is absent an understanding of the chief principles driving the Bush presidency. Bush is anything but a neo-conservative, a label describing a particular sect of the right that was once quite liberal -- they still are, to some degree. neo-conservatives are more liberal, classically speaking, than traditional conservatives; they advocate for socially liberal policy and the projection of a strong military in foreign theatres of concern. JFK, lionized by the Democrats, was a neo-conservative. LBJ was a neo-conservative. George W. Bush is an ultra-conservative, evangelical extremist.

 

[MIMIC]

Not exactly in concert with Kerry "unconceding," but the Ohio vote controversy has picked up more steam:

Conyers to Object to Ohio Electors, Requests Senate Allies

Representative John Conyers, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, will object to the counting of the Ohio Electors from the 2004 Presidential election when Congress convenes to ratify those votes on January 6th. In a letter dispatched to every Senator, which will be officially published by his office shortly, Conyers declares that he will be joined in this by several other members of the House. Rep. Conyers is taking this dramatic step because he believes the allegations and evidence of election tampering and fraud render the current slate of Ohio Electors illegitimate.

"As you know," writes Rep. Conyers in his letter, "on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law."

The letter goes on to ask the Senators who receive this letter to join Conyers in objecting to the Ohio Electors. "I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort," writes Conyers, "to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election."

There are expected to be high level meetings with high ranking Democratic officials next week to coordinate a concerted lobbying effort to convince Senators to challenge the vote. The Green Party and David Cobb, as has been true all along, will be centrally involved in this process, as will Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The remainder of the Conyers letter reads:

3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received." The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof." When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes...from any other State shall be acted upon until the (pending) objection...(is) finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.

Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".

A key legal aspect of this is the second clause referenced in the letter. Rep. Conyers and the other House members involved do not believe the electors have been lawfully certified. They believe that there has been too much illegal activity on the part of Blackwell, other election officials, and Republican operatives on the ground and therefore, as stated in the letter, the electors were not "lawfully certified" under state law. Next week, the House Judiciary Committee Democratic staff will release the report referenced in the letter, which is now still in draft form, and which led Mr. Conyers to this decision.

The Senators who shall receive the greatest focus from Conyers in this matter are Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Inyoue, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson (FL), Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wyden and Obama.

Truthout

 

[Ristamar]

Out presidential electoral system sucks ass. There are better ways, though we seem to be stuck on our Left vs. Right, Black vs. White, Good vs Evil, Redsox vs. The Yankees all-or-nothing method of electing national leaders and representatives.