Ohio 2004 election records illegally destroyed/missing

[BrainGlutton]

Story here. (http://www.alternet.org/story/58328)

The 2004 election results, having been accepted, cannot be overturned, of course. Is this pure carelessness, or is somebody trying to frustrate future historians?

[BrainGlutton]

Some background on the story. (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0904-27.htm)

[Evil Captor]

It's the usual Republican coverup of a criminal conspiracy. I'm sure they had a grand shredding party before the Dems took over after the 2006 election. It would be nice to see some scumbags go to jail over this, but apparently IINIIYAR. (It Is Not Illegal If You Are Republican).

[Evil Captor]

I'd REALLY like to hear some of the moderates and conservatives who dismissed Dem complaints about the way the 2004 election was conducted in Ohio try to explain this ...

[BrainGlutton]

I'd REALLY like to hear some of the moderates and conservatives who dismissed Dem complaints about the way the 2004 election was conducted in Ohio try to explain this ...

The "LA! LA! LA!" form of denial has worked for them up to now -- why change, just because some essential records were accidentally destroyed in contravention of express federal court orders and Ohio law in 56 of Ohio's 88 counties?

Nobody's perfect, you know. Mistakes were made.

[Frank]

The "LA! LA! LA!" form of denial has worked for them up to now -- why change, just because some essential records were accidentally destroyed in contravention of express federal court orders and Ohio law in 56 of Ohio's 88 counties?
You did notice that the court order was not issued until some eight days after the records could be legally destroyed?

[BrainGlutton]

You did notice that the court order was not issued until some eight days after the records could be legally destroyed?

Irrelevant unless the records were destroyed during that eight-day period. And it would be very interesting if they were.

[Squink]

You did notice that the court order was not issued until some eight days after the records could be legally destroyed?Was there an eager crowd waiting outside the ballot sites, antsy to get in and burn?
I find such efficiency on the part of election officials highly suspicious.

[Tuckerfan]

Meh. This changes nothing. If it had been discovered in 2004 and prevented Shrub from taking office, it would be something, but even if the records do turn up, and they prove that Kerry should have won, it can't undo the damage that Shrub has done, nor would it get him out of office sooner, since I'm sure the trail of guilty folks would stop long before it got back to him. Also, I think he could legitimately argue that he's too stupid to concieve of such a plan.

[Frank]

Irrelevant unless the records were destroyed during that eight-day period. And it would be very interesting if they were.
Ohio appears to have a governor, secretary of state and attorney general who are all Democrats. If criminal charges are appropriate against those who may or may not have illegally destroyed the records, I'll rely on them to act appropriately. If conspiracy theories are appropriate, I'll rely on you.

[Hung Mung]

Meh. This changes nothing. If it had been discovered in 2004 and prevented Shrub from taking office, it would be something, but even if the records do turn up, and they prove that Kerry should have won, it can't undo the damage that Shrub has done, nor would it get him out of office sooner, since I'm sure the trail of guilty folks would stop long before it got back to him. Also, I think he could legitimately argue that he's too stupid to concieve of such a plan.
Yeah, on preview, you said it better. I only disagree with you in that I think the trail of guilty folks stops somewhere in the neighborhood of, almost certainly not at the feet of, Karl Rove. He's the Boy Wonder, the master manipulator.

[samclem]

Ohio appears to have a governor, secretary of state and attorney general who are all Democrats. If criminal charges are appropriate against those who may or may not have illegally destroyed the records, I'll rely on them to act appropriately. Heh! If you're rely on any politician in Ohio, whether Dem or Pub, to get anything positive accomplished, you're betting on the wrong horse, my friend. Why, you might as well make plans to move to Canada..........what. really?.

Never mind.

[Evil Captor]

Meh. This changes nothing. If it had been discovered in 2004 and prevented Shrub from taking office, it would be something, but even if the records do turn up, and they prove that Kerry should have won, it can't undo the damage that Shrub has done, nor would it get him out of office sooner, since I'm sure the trail of guilty folks would stop long before it got back to him. Also, I think he could legitimately argue that he's too stupid to concieve of such a plan.

It's another piece in the puzzle demonstrating that the whole Republican election machine is crooked and corrupt, something certain foks even on this board don't seem to want to learn.

[Tuckerfan]

It's another piece in the puzzle demonstrating that the whole Republican election machine is crooked and corrupt, something certain foks even on this board don't seem to want to learn.Hell, do you think that certain folks here wouldn't find anything wrong with Shrub going on national TV, confessing to rigging elections and then declaring himself President for Life? Cause, I'm willing to bet that at least a couple of them would be waving the flag and cheering on our Chimp-in-Chief. Until someone comes up with a smoking gun, all the claims about election rigging are no different than the folks swearing that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't pull the trigger.

[kaylasdad99]

Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for rigging the 2004 presidential race in Ohio?

:eek:

[marshmallow]

It was actually a pretty bad conspiracy, which is why it's believable -- there's too much evidence lying around already. Usually, things like this take years to become declassified. See: Gonzogate, Palast.

The point I always bring up is that it's the fault of the American people, really. The way the GOP massaged the system is smart, but ultimately it only works if elections are extremely close. They have to work at the margins. The fact that Americans have buyer's remorse over Bush now is funny, because he was the same guy back in 2004, with basically the same scandals going on then as now, except now we just have more examples and evidence.

[BrainGlutton]

The point I always bring up is that it's the fault of the American people, really.

Yeh, I know . . . and I beat my wife because she's asking for it . . .

[Sublight]

Yeh, I know . . . and I beat my wife because she's asking for it . . .
What do you say to country that's had two terms of W?

Nothing, you already told it twice.

[Bill Door]

(snip) The fact that Americans have buyer's remorse over Bush now is funny, because he was the same guy back in 2004, with basically the same scandals going on then as now, except now we just have more examples and evidence.

I know, my neighbor was a big Bush supporter in 2004. Every time I see him now I give him a big smile and say "Is he every bit the President you thought he would be? Because he's exactly what I expected." It's driving him crazy.

[Shodan]

BG -

The Whiningly Obsessive Sore Loser Society of America called.

They're revoking your membership for embarassing them.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

BG -

The Whiningly Obsessive Sore Loser Society of America called.

They're revoking your membership for embarassing them.

Regards,
Shodan

Fucking splitters!

[Shodan]

OK, that's funny.

Regards,
Shodan

[NurseCarmen]

Shodan,

Evidence of wrongdoing met with name calling? Is that all you got?

[BrainGlutton]

Shodan,

Evidence of wrongdoing met with name calling? Is that all you got?

[shrug] It's the Pit. Standards are not high, Og be thanked.

[Shodan]

Shodan,

Evidence of wrongdoing met with name calling? Is that all you got?
These kind of conspiracy theories can't be argued against. They're not based on rational thought.

For heaven's sake, the OP says that this makes no difference. He goes on to say that the records were "essential", without knowing what they were, that they were destroyed "accidentally", and then finishes by misrepresenting them as having been destroyed in "contravention of express federal court orders". Frank has already pointed out that all the senior officials in Ohio are Democrats, which makes the idea of a cover-up more than slightly ludicrous.

The left-wing loonies throw this stuff up there all the time. It never goes anywhere, because there is never any evidence apparent to the reasonable mind.

Of course EC is going to chime in with his usual crap about deep-laid conspiracies and the rest of his shit. It's all he's capable of. BrainGlutton is much better off; he can take a joke.

This is not a topic that can be debated reasonably. Therefore, the only chance for amusement is to mock and ridicule the Usual Suspects and their Usual Paranoid Crapola.

"Morons hate it when you call them morons", I know, but sometimes I like to do it.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

For heaven's sake, the OP says that this makes no difference.

Only WRT the actual political results from 2005-2009, which are already a fait accompli; but that's not quite all that matters, is it? (See, e.g., the lawsuit described in the linked story in the OP.)

He goes on to say that the records were "essential", without knowing what they were . . .[/i]

The linked story covers what they were.

. . . that they were destroyed "accidentally" . . .

WHHOOOOOSSSHHH!!!!

. . . and then finishes by misrepresenting them as having been destroyed in "contravention of express federal court orders".

As they may well have been; that depends on the date of their destruction, which remains to be determined.

Frank has already pointed out that all the senior officials in Ohio are Democrats, which makes the idea of a cover-up more than slightly ludicrous.

The 22 months the records were required to be preserved under Ohio law expired September 2, 2006. The U.S. District Court issued its order that they be preserved on September 11, 2006. Kenneth Blackwell (R) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Blackwell) was Ohio's Secretary of State during the 2004 elections and remained in office until January 8, 2007, when his successor, Jennifer Brunner (D), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Brunner) took office. Likewise with Bob Taft (R), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Taft) who was Governor until succeeded this January by Ted Strickland (D). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_strickland)

So, the records might have been deliberately destroyed (lawfully or unlawfully) on a Republican's watch.

The left-wing loonies throw this stuff up there all the time. It never goes anywhere, because there is never any evidence apparent to the reasonable mind.

1) Of course not, if somebody destroys the evidence.

2) Actually, WRT 2004 in Ohio, there is plenty of other evidence, presented countless times on this Board, which happens to be beyond the reach of destruction, but also beyond the range of your perception, as your eyes and ears are so tightly sealed by your rectal walls.

[Steve MB]

You did notice that the court order was not issued until some eight days after the records could be legally destroyed?

The likelihood that they were all destroyed during that eight-day window is miniscule... unless somebody was waiting for that moment like it was the release date for the last Harry Potter book, in which case I want to know who and why....

[BrainGlutton]

The likelihood that they were all destroyed during that eight-day window is miniscule... unless somebody was waiting for that moment like it was the release date for the last Harry Potter book, in which case I want to know who and why....

Oh, that's easy! It's because Rowling wrote the series so brilliantly and built up such interest in its resolution! :)

What?

[UncleBeer]

2) Actually, WRT 2004 in Ohio, there is plenty of other evidence, presented countless times on this Board, which happens to be beyond the reach of destruction, but also beyond the range of your perception, as your eyes and ears are so tightly sealed by your rectal walls.
And refuted an equal number of times. But don't let that stop you now. Solid evidence, or rather the lack of it, has never swayed you from your emotional position before.

[Evil Captor]

And refuted an equal number of times. But don't let that stop you now. Solid evidence, or rather the lack of it, has never swayed you from your emotional position before.

I see a man wreathed in smoke, crying, "Fire? What fire?"

[Blalron]

BG -

The Whiningly Obsessive Sore Loser Society of America called.

They're revoking your membership for embarassing them.

I wonder why no Republican on this board seems to care that our democracy is being subverted.

[Blalron]

Are you not even the slightest fucking suspicious about these records being destroyed? You disappoint me, Shodan. For a long time I thought the other side merely had a different ideology from me but still had a good heart. I'm beginning to question the latter.

[elucidator]

Cognitive Dissonance claims another innocent mind! Now, will you listen? Now?

[elucidator]

Cognitive Dissonance claims another innocent victm! Now, will you listen? Now?

[BrainGlutton]

I wonder why no Republican on this board seems to care that our democracy is being subverted.

Because America is a Republic, not a Democracy! DUH!

[Shodan]

I wonder why no Republican on this board seems to care that our democracy is being subverted.

Perhaps the lack of evidence that it is has something to do with it.
Are you not even the slightest fucking suspicious about these records being destroyed? Based on what?

It seems the difference is that I do not assume guilt without evidence. The Usual Suspects do, and cling to it well beyond the point where they become laughable.
You disappoint me, Shodan. For a long time I thought the other side merely had a different ideology from me but still had a good heart. I'm beginning to question the latter.
It's not our hearts; it's our knees. They don't jerk the same way.

Based on this story, you are willing to assume this is a cover up of election rigging in Ohio.

That's how conspiracy theories work - the fact that there is no evidence proves that the conspiracy is real. There was nobody on the grassy knoll either, but that doesn't stem the flood of "Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA/Castro/LBJ/the Mafia/space aliens from the planet Zongo" theories.

This will be kicked around for a bit in the fever swamps of the Loony Left, die away for lack of evidence of any systematic wrong-doing - and then get dragged up again as if it were proof of something the next time some crackpot Commie with Internet access decides he still doesn't want to deal with the fact that Bush was elected to the White House, twice. And I will chime in to mock their failure to overcome the giggle factor.

Business as usual.

Regards,
Shodan

[John Mace]

Look at the bright side, BG. I don't think even the most whacked-out conspiracy theorists deny that Bush won the popular vote. So, if Kerry had won in Ohio, you'd be left defending the Electoral College.

[BrainGlutton]

I don't think even the most whacked-out conspiracy theorists deny that Bush won the popular vote.

I think you are mistaken. The exit polls showed Kerry leading by 5 million votes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities#Exit_polls)

[John Mace]

Look at the bright side, BG. I don't think even the most whacked-out conspiracy theorists deny that Bush won the popular vote.I think you are mistaken. The exit polls showed Kerry leading by 5 million votes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities#Exit_polls)
I stand corrected concerning the existence of even more whacked-out conspiracy theorists than I had thought. Carry on.

[if6was9]

Look at the bright side, BG. I don't think even the most whacked-out conspiracy theorists deny that Bush won the popular vote. So, if Kerry had won in Ohio, you'd be left defending the Electoral College.
Can't speak for BG, but I'd much rather have Kerry in office and try to defend the EC, than the way it turned out... endlessly accusing the see-no-evil Republican defenders while thousands of our boys die, the rule of law means nothing and the constitution is no more than TP. And all they have is name-calling and Clinton got a blowjob. :rolleyes:

[BrainGlutton]

In any case, if Kerry had won the EC but unambiguously lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, I would not defend the EC, I would use the results to try to turn conservatives against it.

[elucidator]

When I first heard about this, i dismissed it out of hand, the exit polls didn't impress me much. After all, if I had voted for Bush, I damned sure wouldn't admit it.

But since then I have seen glimmers of darkness here and there, not enough to convince, but enough to arouse suspicion. Our electoral process is about as sacred an institution as a democracy can have, it is our core principal. I would expect that a party that felt itself besmirched by raving conspiracy loonies would bend every effort to preserve the records and insist strenuously on a full and thorough review. And yet, oddly, this does not seem to be the case.

Gotta wonder why.

[Tuckerfan]

When I first heard about this, i dismissed it out of hand, the exit polls didn't impress me much. After all, if I had voted for Bush, I damned sure wouldn't admit it.

But since then I have seen glimmers of darkness here and there, not enough to convince, but enough to arouse suspicion. Our electoral process is about as sacred an institution as a democracy can have, it is our core principal. I would expect that a party that felt itself besmirched by raving conspiracy loonies would bend every effort to preserve the records and insist strenuously on a full and thorough review. And yet, oddly, this does not seem to be the case.

Gotta wonder why.
It's pretty simple, really: They're in power, so why should they care?

[John Mace]

In any case, if Kerry had won the EC but unambiguously lost the popular vote, as Bush did in 2000, I would not defend the EC, I would use the results to try to turn conservatives against it.
I was just engaging in some good natured ribbing, BG. I know you don't like the EC. Guess I should've put a smiley there, but I thought the humor content was obvious.

[BrainGlutton]

I was just engaging in some good natured ribbing, BG. I know you don't like the EC. Guess I should've put a smiley there, but I thought the humor content was obvious.

I know, I know.




Kerry did so win the popular vote.

[Little Plastic Ninja]

I know this isn't the place for calm, well-reasoned debate, but damn it I like to have something to argue about!

Shodan, if it is true that "Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records" which "violate(s) Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day" (quotes from the above-linked OP), do you find that fact concerning? Why or why not? Assuming that these ballots and election records have been destroyed, why do you think they might have been destroyed? Would you agree or disagree that whoever was responsible for their destruction ought to be prosecuted under Ohio's election law statutes? Why or why not?

I believe in my heart that you're a smart and principled guy, Shodan. I disagree with you on politics but I don't hate you. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[John Carter of Mars]

This is virtually the same conspiracy theory/voting machine/Ohio robbery bullshit that was discredited months, or is it years ago now, in several GD threads. Just like last time, it's complete with cites from questionable sites.

Does the Sore Loser Society never give up?

[Clothahump]

These kind of conspiracy theories can't be argued against. They're not based on rational thought.

For heaven's sake, the OP says that this makes no difference. He goes on to say that the records were "essential", without knowing what they were, that they were destroyed "accidentally", and then finishes by misrepresenting them as having been destroyed in "contravention of express federal court orders". Frank has already pointed out that all the senior officials in Ohio are Democrats, which makes the idea of a cover-up more than slightly ludicrous.

The left-wing loonies throw this stuff up there all the time. It never goes anywhere, because there is never any evidence apparent to the reasonable mind.

Of course EC is going to chime in with his usual crap about deep-laid conspiracies and the rest of his shit. It's all he's capable of. BrainGlutton is much better off; he can take a joke.

This is not a topic that can be debated reasonably. Therefore, the only chance for amusement is to mock and ridicule the Usual Suspects and their Usual Paranoid Crapola.

"Morons hate it when you call them morons", I know, but sometimes I like to do it.


High-fives Shodan.

Well said!

[elucidator]

As simple a question as you may wish it to be, it isn't. I am certainly not prepared to declare a guilty verdict, but I am just as certainly not willing to dismiss it out of hand, as I was previously. Since when is it legitimate to pressure AGs to press corruption charges with a timing to sway an election? Since when is it legitimate to hold political briefings for "our" candidates for public employees? If they will do these things, why is impossible to believe they would do others as well? If there some bright ethical line between the reprehensible and the merely repulsive?

Don't you want to know? Don't you want every detail to be examined and verified? If it is all found to be stuff and nonsense, splendid! What excellent news, that our worst fears are not realized. Why would you oppose such an investigation, assuming that you are convinced beyond argument that innocent lambs abound?

Unless, of course, you are not quite sure of that.... In which case, probably your best tack is to go on the offensive, to suggest that the Dems are merely anxious to besmirch the impeccable honor of the Pubbies. More than they have themselves, I mean. A daunting task, to be sure.

[Blalron]

Perhaps the lack of evidence that it is has something to do with it.
Based on what?

It seems the difference is that I do not assume guilt without evidence. The Usual Suspects do, and cling to it well beyond the point where they become laughable.

I hope you will still join me in lamenting the destruction of these records. I'm sure you're sad that the evidence proving Bush legitimately won is now gone. I'm sure you are outraged every time a vote, even a vote for the opposition, is mistabulated. You just don't seem to be showing it very well.

[Blalron]

I hope you will still join me in lamenting the destruction of these records. I'm sure you're sad that the evidence proving Bush legitimately won is now gone. I'm sure you are outraged every time a vote, even a vote for the opposition, is mistabulated. You just don't seem to be showing it very well.

What I find most distressing is that you aren't even paying lip service to the notion that something went wrong here. You immediately go into "LA LA LA you can't prove anything" mode. That's what's so fucking infuriating. The proof was there, but then it mysteriously disappeared. Fucking fairies must have taken it in the night.

[Squink]

It seems the difference is that I do not assume guilt without evidence.
Have things changed since Oct. 2002 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2494971&highlight=Saddam#post2494971)?
if we destroy the places where WMD are being produced, we take a good long step toward reducing the danger of terrorists using dirty bombs and so forth, both by eliminating current stockpiles, and by reducing the threat in the future.

[Shodan]

Have things changed since Oct. 2002 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2494971&highlight=Saddam#post2494971)?
Not very much - I still think that the desired outcome is that Iraq accepts inspections without limits both now, and in the foreseeable future. I hope you will still join me in lamenting the destruction of these records. I'm sure you're sad that the evidence proving Bush legitimately won is now gone.That was one of my points - all reasonable minds agree that Bush legitimately won. It isn't necessary to prove it, again, because those who are susceptible to evidence and logic are already convinced. Evidence has no effect on the Usual Suspects, so whether we keep these things around for twenty two months or twenty two years isn't going to make any difference.
I'm sure you are outraged every time a vote, even a vote for the opposition, is mistabulated. You just don't seem to be showing it very well.
As I mentioned, I am not outraged simply because the Left tells me I should be. There is no evidence that votes have been mistabulated. That is merely something you are assuming, based on the fact that Bush won the election.
What I find most distressing is that you aren't even paying lip service to the notion that something went wrong here.That's because, as mentioned, there is no evidence that something did go wrong.

You immediately go into "LA LA LA you can't prove anything" mode. That's what's so fucking infuriating.Reality is so annoying, isn't it?
The proof was there, but then it mysteriously disappeared. Remember what I said earlier about conspiracy theories, and how lack of evidence is taken as proof? That is exactly what you are doing here.
I know this isn't the place for calm, well-reasoned debate, but damn it I like to have something to argue about!

Shodan, if it is true that "Two-thirds of Ohio counties have destroyed or lost their 2004 presidential ballots and related election records" which "violate(s) Ohio law, which states federal election records must be kept for 22 months after Election Day" (quotes from the above-linked OP), do you find that fact concerning? Why or why not?Based on the evidence to date, not. 22 months was up on September 6, 2006. The statement that this "violates Ohio law" is false.
Assuming that these ballots and election records have been destroyed, why do you think they might have been destroyed?
So as to be in accordance with state law. Would you agree or disagree that whoever was responsible for their destruction ought to be prosecuted under Ohio's election law statutes? Why or why not?
Because they are not in violation of Ohio's election law statutes.

The way to demonstrate that a crime has been committed is to show that the records were destroyed after the court order was received. That would be illegal. Of course, then you need to account for the fact that they retained the records for a period in accordance with state law, and nobody found anything untoward. Then the legal retention period expired, and suddenly they realized that the evidence of some massive conspiracy had been left lying around for public inspection for almost two years.

So for twenty two months, they were both stupid and law-abiding. Then they had a chance to destroy the evidence quite legally, but waited long enough to receive a court order telling them to retain the records. Then they broke the law by destroying the records proving that they were engaged in a huge conspiracy of vote fraud.

So, for twenty two months, they could have eliminated the evidence of this huge fraud (at the cost of breaking the law), but they didn't do it. Then they had a period during which they could have eliminated the evidence without anyone being able to say Boo about it, but they didn't do it. Then they got a court order telling them that it was again illegal to destroy the records, and then they did it. If they didn't care about breaking the law, why did they wait two years to do it? If they did, why didn't they eliminate the records when they had the chance?

One of the great conspiracies in the history of American elections (supposedly), and it is run by folks who leave the evidence sitting there for twenty two months, miss their chance to make the cover-up perfect, and then shoot themselves in the foot by violating a court order. And these are people who can bring off a conspiracy large enough to steal five million votes in a state which turns out to be the one that puts Bush's election over the top.

Suuuuuuure it is.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Why destroy them at all? Are they a health hazard? Do they offer some advantage to the terrorists? You are eager to assure us that they are of no consequence, that all "reasonable minds" are in complete accordance, and that the reasonability of those minds is best demonstrated by that self-same accordance. Hence, we assured that they pose no threat, they could be copied and freely disseminated without any unfortunate effects.

Whether it is done legally, illegally, or with malice aforethought, why do it at all? Clearly, if one is seeking to cover up an unpleaseant reality, one has an obvious motive. But if one is as anxious as you that the truth be known, shouldn't they be preserved? And yet, oddly, this is not your position.

[kaylasdad99]

If I understand correctly, there was a very narrow window of opportunity (eight days) during which destruction of the records was legal. Is there any documentation that supports the assertion that the documents were destroyed within that timeframe?

Would there, in the usual course of things, be documentation that a document destruction event took place?

[BrainGlutton]

If I understand correctly, there was a very narrow window of opportunity (eight days) during which destruction of the records was legal. Is there any documentation that supports the assertion that the documents were destroyed within that timeframe?

Would there, in the usual course of things, be documentation that a document destruction event took place?

I dunno, but there would definitely be witnesses, and in the elections offices of 56 separate counties -- no way are all of them gonna stonewall.

[Blalron]

So as to be in accordance with state law.Because they are not in violation of Ohio's election law statutes.

Cite that Ohio state law required these ballots to be destroyed?

[Shodan]

I should have predicted the inevitable attempt to shift from "prove that this was illegal" to "prove that it wasn't".

Change the words "So as to be" to "Because it ws, as far as can be determined to date".

I do not know, and do not intend to bother with a search to find out, if the destruction of the records was compulsory. That is not the point. The burden of proof lies entirely with you, to show that the destruction of the records was illegal, and that it was done in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

The burden of proof lies entirely with you, to show that the destruction of the records was illegal, and that it was done in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Sooner or later we will find out when the records were destroyed. If it was not within the eight-day window mentioned above, it was illegal, and conspiracy would appear to be the most plausible explanation -- have you another?

[Shodan]

Sooner or later we will find out when the records were destroyed. If it was not within the eight-day window mentioned above, it was illegal, and conspiracy would appear to be the most plausible explanation -- have you another?This is like arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist.

If you assume that conspiracies are behind everything, then they seem to appear everywhere. Some people reported hearing more than three shots on the Plaza - what possible explanation could there be for that, other than a conspiracy between the CIA, the Mafia, and LBJ?

;)

Regards,
Shodan

[Tuckerfan]

Sooner or later we will find out when the records were destroyed. If it was not within the eight-day window mentioned above, it was illegal, and conspiracy would appear to be the most plausible explanation -- have you another?
When dealing with the government, never underestimate the power of stupidity.

[Sarahfeena]

When dealing with the government, never underestimate the power of stupidity. That was my thought, too...the MOST plausible explanation is that someone either made a mistake or didn't know what the law was.

[Squink]

someone either made a mistake...How many someones? In how many counties?

[Evil Captor]

This is like arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist.

If you assume that conspiracies are behind everything, then they seem to appear everywhere. Some people reported hearing more than three shots on the Plaza - what possible explanation could there be for that, other than a conspiracy between the CIA, the Mafia, and LBJ?

;)

Regards,
Shodan

Translation: LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!

We get the message.

[BrainGlutton]

That was my thought, too...the MOST plausible explanation is that someone either made a mistake or didn't know what the law was.

56 times?

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action . . .

[Sarahfeena]

56 times?

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action . . . The instruction to do it probably came from a centralized place, so it was only the mistake of one person. The office staff who carried it out in each place may not have a clue in the world.

[PunditLisa]

I'm pretty sure they're in a Rubbermaid container in my basement. I'd go down and count them but there's a bunch of spiders down there. And Jimmy Hoffa.

[elucidator]

Dunno about that, Sarah. Campaign workers gossip about issues relative to themselves, just like the rest of us. There is little to no likelihood that they were entirely unaware of the bubbling "scandal". Hence, we are on pretty safe ground to assume that they were aware of the implications of the actions, we might then conclude that they were instructed, in no uncertain terms, to their actions. I daresay its likely that one or several of them relayed their concerns to the higher-ups, along the lines of "You sure about this, boss?". So, as simple mistake by one person, a genuine "ooopsy!" doesn't seem very likely.

[NurseCarmen]

The instruction to do it probably came from a centralized place, so it was only the mistake nefarious action of one person.

[BrainGlutton]

And if it was all done pursuant to one circular order from the Secretary of State's office, why only 56 times, when Ohio has 88 counties?

[Sarahfeena]

Dunno about that, Sarah. Campaign workers gossip about issues relative to themselves, just like the rest of us. There is little to no likelihood that they were entirely unaware of the bubbling "scandal". Hence, we are on pretty safe ground to assume that they were aware of the implications of the actions, we might then conclude that they were instructed, in no uncertain terms, to their actions. I daresay its likely that one or several of them relayed their concerns to the higher-ups, along the lines of "You sure about this, boss?". So, as simple mistake by one person, a genuine "ooopsy!" doesn't seem very likely.

And if it was all done pursuant to one circular order from the Secretary of State's office, why only 56 times, when Ohio has 88 counties?

I think, BG, that you did my job of refuting elucidator's point! I would not expect that a centralized directive would necessarily be followed in lockstep by each county...I would expect some to follow it, some to question it, some to have already accidently destroyed the records, some to ignore it or procrastinate doing it because they were busy with other stuff, etc., etc. This is how bureaucracies work. A directive is given, and human response to it will be all over the map (as the precincts are reporting, according to the article you linked to, BG).

My guess as to how these things work in the real world is like this: After the 22 months are up, a memo goes out that the records can be destroyed...not that they must be, but that it is legal to do so, and that the precinct can use their judgment on whether or not to do it. Some precincts do it, some figure they'll get around to it when they need the room, some realize, OOPS...we got rid of them already...guess we weren't supposed to do that, etc. Some of it may have happened within the 8-day window, some may have happened after the court order went out because of miscommunication within the office, etc.

I work in a 3-person office and we miscommunicate stuff like this sometimes...no doubt in my mind that in the government, this is magnified by about a million percent.

[elucidator]

That is an interesting conjecture.

[Evil Captor]

The instruction to do it probably came from a centralized place, so it was only the mistake of one person. The office staff who carried it out in each place may not have a clue in the world.

Yah. I'm thinkin' Karl Rove.

[Sarahfeena]

That is an interesting conjecture. Interesting how?

[Tuckerfan]

Why is it that this questions always arise about one state that just barely went to Bush? Why don't we hear about questions in a state that heavily went to Bush?

[Blalron]

This is like arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist.


I have a question for you.

Assuming all the ballots were destroyed within the narrow eight day window where it was legal to destroy them, do you think the destruction was an entirely innocent, ethical action? Am I batshit crazy for thinking it unlikely that the same bureacracy that brought us the DMV is going to destroy all those ballots so quickly unless somebody had a very strong motive to see them gone?

[Blalron]

Even if no crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, shouldn't this merit serious discussion about how to better improve our electoral system and make it less resistant to the possibility of tampering? Can I at least get you to concede that, Shodan? Throw me a frickin bone here.

[Blalron]

Why is it that this questions always arise about one state that just barely went to Bush? Why don't we hear about questions in a state that heavily went to Bush?

From the standpoint of anybody who wants to hypothetically steal an election, there is no advantage to taking such risks in a solid red or blue state like Utah or Massachussetts. The exit polls would be so ridiculously out of wack (10% or more in the opposite direction) that even Fox News would have to admit something doesn't look right. In comparison, a state with a razor thin margin is trivially easy to nudge in a certain direction.

[Shodan]

I have a question for you.

Assuming all the ballots were destroyed within the narrow eight day window where it was legal to destroy them, do you think the destruction was an entirely innocent, ethical action?
With no more information than what you stipulate, I can't see why it would not be.

It seems you are continuing with the same baseless assumption that underlies the whole thing about how there must have been something wrong with the election, because Bush won. There seems to be nothing behind all the manufactured controversy about the 2004 election than that - as Tuckerfan says, why does these questions only arise when the Democrats lose?

You assume, thus, that the election of 2004 was influenced by fraud. You assume also that the destruction or loss of these ballots is also influenced by fraud. You can't seem to come with any solid evidence of either.

Why do you assume that it might not have been ethical?

If you are saying that we should keep the records until there is no question left that the election was legitimate. As I mentioned earlier, there is never going to be a point at which partisans will cease to question the election, as long as the result remains Bush in the White House until 2009. You had twenty two months to examine the records, with no result. So now you got a court order, after the fact, requiring that the records be retained after the period established by state law. To do, presumably, in the next twenty two months whatever you couldn't do in the last twenty two. Or (possibly) to try to miscast and mischaracterize the destruction of the records so as to make it appear that something illegal or unethical or shady has gone on. As I said, the mere fact that no evidence exists is enough to convince some of the more ridiculously gullible assholes of the far Left (hi, Evil Captor!) that some dark conspiracy actually rigged the election.

Some of the notes of the Kennedy autopsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination) disappeared. Therefore, they must have contained the smoking gun proving unquestionably that there was a cover-up.

Some people really reason like that. Some of them have posted to this thread.

Look, Bush won the election, fair and square. Sour grapes and fantasies aren't going to change anything. It just makes you folks look like idiots.

The day I put any credence into this kind of thing is the day when it starts up about some close election that a Democrat won.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

Even if no crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, shouldn't this merit serious discussion about how to better improve our electoral system and make it less resistant to the possibility of tampering? Do me a favor, then - define "this" in the above sentence.

Regards,
Shodan

[BobLibDem]

Why is it that this questions always arise about one state that just barely went to Bush? Why don't we hear about questions in a state that heavily went to Bush?

Because so much went on there. From the Secretary of State invalidating voter registrations because they were on the wrong weight paper to Republican caging lists to other attempts to intimidate minority voters to grossly inequitable distribution of voting machines to Republican challenges to minority voters to electronic voting results much more different from exit polls than other voting methods to the vote tabulations being switched to the RNC server to CNN doctoring its exit polls to match the crooked results coming in. If you're going to rig an election, far easier to focus on one key state that is near the tipping point.

[Cheesesteak]

Blalron, you do realize that Massachusetts (and 13 other states) had a higher Poll/Vote difference than Ohio did in the 2004 election, and Utah wasn't far behind. Check about 1/2 of the way down this page (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00227.htm) to see the whole list of "red shifts".

Plenty of states with higher red shifts than Ohio can't even laughably be considered battleground states, yet there isn't a single peep from anyone asking why those states had a change like that. You can talk Ohio conspiracy all you want, but until your theory also explains how states that were never even close to being at risk had higher (or similar) variances, the theory is a pile of crap.

Either it was a nationwide conspiracy encompassing dozens of states, many of which were never in contention, or it was a statistical problem with the polling.

[Evil Captor]

As I said, the mere fact that no evidence exists is enough to convince some of the more ridiculously gullible assholes of the far Left (hi, Evil Captor!) that some dark conspiracy actually rigged the election.

Look who's talking Mr. Bush Apologist. You backed the bastard in fucking 2004. You are one of the most gullible drones ever to post on this message board. Witness this witless post of yours from 2004:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4587779&postcount=36

You've got a lot of damn gall calling ME gullible, monkey boy. You and your fellow minions of mindlessness have helped make American government what it is today, torture-loving, incompetent, corrupt and stupid. Way to go!

I hope every moderate who reads this board will keep the record of the guys YOU'VE backed in mind when they read your posts. It's YOUR record, too, because you've backed Bush to the hilt.

[BMalion]

Is it Wednesday already? Wow.

[Shodan]

And so, ineluctably, the thread changes away from "what evidence have you got of voter fraud" to the other topic that Evil Captor thinks about while masturbating -

BushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBushLiedBush Liedfapfapfap....

You're gonna get callouses on it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Tuckerfan]

Because so much went on there. From the Secretary of State invalidating voter registrations because they were on the wrong weight paper to Republican caging lists to other attempts to intimidate minority voters to grossly inequitable distribution of voting machines to Republican challenges to minority voters to electronic voting results much more different from exit polls than other voting methods to the vote tabulations being switched to the RNC server to CNN doctoring its exit polls to match the crooked results coming in. If you're going to rig an election, far easier to focus on one key state that is near the tipping point.
But Ohio can't have been the only state where the outcome was close, but it's the only state where people are paying attention to. And remember that this is an Administration that can't seem to keep anything secret, so how the fuck is it that they can keep this a secret?

Oh, and here's the website (http://www.voternewsservice.com/) of a couple of brothers who made a career out of claiming that elections were rigged.

[BobLibDem]

I don't think there's any evidence of Bush involvement. I think overzealous Republicans in Ohio took it upon themselves to do what they could to steal the election. And even that need not have been coordinated. Secretary of State Blackwell was a rabid Bush partisan and was also in charge of the election. Knowing the election was close, he threw as many barriers as possible in the way of minority voters. Other Republican zealots had the motive and opportunity to get into the electronic returns and make a few changes in Bush's favor.

[BMalion]

I don't think there's any evidence of Bush involvement. I think overzealous Republicans in Ohio took it upon themselves to do what they could to steal the election. And even that need not have been coordinated.
...

So, would that be a conspiracy?


...
Secretary of State Blackwell was a rabid Bush partisan and was also in charge of the election. Knowing the election was close, he threw as many barriers as possible in the way of minority voters. Other Republican zealots had the motive and opportunity to get into the electronic returns and make a few changes in Bush's favor.


Any proof?

[Cheesesteak]

I don't think there's any evidence of Bush involvement. I think overzealous Republicans in Ohio took it upon themselves to do what they could to steal the election. Were there similar overzealous republicans in New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Alaska, Alabama, North Carolina, Connecticut, etc. trying to steal the election, that caused the vote in those states to deviate from the exit polls more than they did in Ohio? Or, were the variances in those states completely unrelated to what happened in Ohio, some mystery effect that did not occur in Ohio, for reasons unknown.

[BobLibDem]

Excellent questions. I'll have to defer answering for a bit as I gather some facts.

[Blalron]

Some of the notes of the Kennedy autopsy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination) disappeared. Therefore, they must have contained the smoking gun proving unquestionably that there was a cover-up.

Some people really reason like that. Some of them have posted to this thread.


It's a hell of a lot easier to lose autopsy notes than it is the ballots of a Presidential election in 56 counties. When evidence is intentionally destroyed, it is only natural to be suspicious.

[BrainGlutton]

So, would that be a conspiracy?

As posited, yes.

[Blalron]

The term "conspiracy theory" has tainted the word "conspiracy" and evokes images of Oliver Stone's JFK, with Kevin Costner playing an overzealous prosecutor playing the Zapruder Film and chanting "back, and to the left. back, and to the left".

But Oliver Stone notwithstanding, a conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to break the law. Since it would take more than two people to destroy all those ballots, a conspiracy can logically be posited as a likely explanation for the missing ballots.

[Blalron]

Do me a favor, then - define "this" in the above sentence.

Regards,
Shodan

By "this" I mean the process by which ballots are collected, tabulated, and eventually destroyed in a democratic society. This particular incident shows that there is some ambiguity in the process which could easily be clarified by some change in the law. If ballots are to be destroyed, shouldn't they be destroyed at a very specific time after an election after all possible legal contestations have run their course? If the law clearly said "Two years after an election all ballots are to be destroyed" then I would shrug my shoulders and leave this issue alone.

But it appears that in this instance either the law was flagrantly broken or somebody took extreme care to ensure that they stayed within the letter of the law and with great haste destroyed ballots whose destruction were by no means a requirement. Using Ockhams razor, the simplest explanation tending to be the right one, what do you think the explanation is for these missing ballots?

Your strong disinterest in knowing the truth of this is puzzling.

[Sarahfeena]

But Oliver Stone notwithstanding, a conspiracy is simply an agreement between two or more people to break the law. Since it would take more than two people to destroy all those ballots, a conspiracy can logically be posited as a likely explanation for the missing ballots. Based just on the premises you state...that 1) a conspiracy is an agreement between two people to break the law and 2) that it would take more than two people to destroy all the ballots, I would say that your conclusion is an overstatement at best. A better conclusion would be more along the lines of this: "a conspiracy can logically be posited as a POSSIBLE explanation for the missing ballots." After all, we haven't even established that a law has been broken.

But it appears that in this instance either the law was flagrantly broken or somebody took extreme care to ensure that they stayed within the letter of the law and with great haste destroyed ballots whose destruction were by no means a requirement. Using Ockhams razor, the simplest explanation tending to be the right one, what do you think the explanation is for these missing ballots? I would say that the simpler answer is the one I suggested earlier...that there IS no one explanation for what happened to the ballots, but that they were destroyed, lost, or damaged in various ways for various reasons, due to individual office policy, human error, etc.

[Shodan]

By "this" I mean the process by which ballots are collected, tabulated, and eventually destroyed in a democratic society.
So the fact that there was a law stipulating a minimum period for which vote records should be retained makes you suspicious that a conspiracy has been at work?
This particular incident shows that there is some ambiguity in the process which could easily be clarified by some change in the law. If ballots are to be destroyed, shouldn't they be destroyed at a very specific time after an election after all possible legal contestations have run their course?
As far as has been determined, this is exactly what has happened. The ballots were destroyed, twenty two months after the election, and all possible legal contestations should have run their course. But the court order contravening Ohio state law was not issued until eight days after that.

The objections of those filiing the legal action are not predicated on any ambiguity in Ohio law. And this whole nonsense about how the destruction of the records constitutes proof of a cover-up is not going to be affected by any law stating that the records must be destroyed. They can simply wait until the legal retention period expires, and then make the same accusations as they are doing now.
If the law clearly said "Two years after an election all ballots are to be destroyed" then I would shrug my shoulders and leave this issue alone.
Maybe you would, but, as I mentioned, nothing about the law as stated could prevent someone else from making the same amount of hay over (apparently) nothing.
But it appears that in this instance either the law was flagrantly broken or somebody took extreme care to ensure that they stayed within the letter of the law and with great haste destroyed ballots whose destruction were by no means a requirement. Using Ockhams razor, the simplest explanation tending to be the right one, what do you think the explanation is for these missing ballots?
Well there is no evidence to date that any law was broken twenty two months doesn't strike me as "great haste" the simplest explanation that I can see does not involve vast conspiracies. Perhaps it does for you.As far as I can tell, the simplest explanation is the one contained in my previous post. The officials retained the records for the period established by law. Thus any opponents had twenty two months to come up with something. They failed. The period expired, and the records were destroyed.

I would presume that at least part of the motivation behind the original law was that, for most reasonable people, enough is enough. Keeping the records around permanently not only raises privacy issues, but having some kind of "statute of limitations" on election challenges makes sense. For heaven's sake, some of the Usual Suspects are still whining about losing the election in the electoral college seven years ago.

Conspiracies of the scope necessary to bring off fraud on this scale are so difficult to bring off as to be nearly impossible. Somebody always blabs, or some concrete evidence always comes up. BG claims that five million votes were stolen.

It has been twenty two months, and no real evidence has come up. At some point, it makes sense to say, "Look, the election is over, you lost, you had two years to make a reasonable case, you couldn't do it, the records are now gone so STFU and get over it".
Your strong disinterest in knowing the truth of this is puzzling.
As I keep asking, what evidence do you have that "the truth of this" involves any criminal activity, or that a conspiracy existed?

Regards,
Shodan

[kaylasdad99]

As far as has been determined, this is exactly what has happened. The ballots were destroyed, twenty two months after the election, and all possible legal contestations should have run their course. But the court order contravening Ohio state law was not issued until eight days after that. Absent documentation of the date[s] of the destruction, this assertion (the bolded portion) still contains a non-zero component of conjecture. To the extent to which you insist that the conjectural component is zero (or of a value so small as to be unworthy of concern), you will find your disagreement with several here to be irreconcilable.

[Sarahfeena]

As I keep asking, what evidence do you have that "the truth of this" involves any criminal activity, or that a conspiracy existed? Exactly. If everything I know so far seems like standard operating procedure, why would I go out of my way to look for evidence that it wasn't?

[elucidator]

Given the Pubbies unblemished record of civic virtue and and electoral purity?

[BrainGlutton]

For some reason, I cannot find any coverage of this story by searching the websites of The Columbus Dispatch or The Plain Dealer.

[Sarahfeena]

Given the Pubbies unblemished record of civic virtue and and electoral purity? Given the evidence or lack thereof in this specific situation.

[Squink]

The Dog Ate Our Ballots (http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/14/the-dog-ate-our-ballots) "In Allen County, [BoE director] Mr. [Keith] Cunningham informed [Brunner] that the basement where the ballots were had been leaking for six years," says Fitrakis. "He said the 2004 ballots had to be moved to the floor because they needed stuff on a higher shelf. He provided papers to the Free Press that said they had to throw them out because they were moldy. If you put ballots in a vault that's been leaking for six years by Mr. Cunningham's own admission and you put them on the floor, that's an intentional destruction of public records from my perspective."

One explanation verged on the comical. In rural Holmes County, the board claimed a shelving unit containing ballots and other material from the 2004 election collapsed onto a table containing a working coffeemaker, shattering its filled carafe and soaking the material with coffee. "Many of the stored items had to be destroyed due to broken glass and hot coffee," their letter states.

[elucidator]

And the question I posed earlier remains unanswered: why destroy the records? Do they present some health hazard? Is there any compelling reason why they must be destroyed, at the earliest legal opportunity? To what end? Who benefits?

[elucidator]

Well, that certainly settles that! I had no idea they were all, like, moldy. And stuff.

[Shodan]

As far as has been determined, this is exactly what has happened. The ballots were destroyed, twenty two months after the election, and all possible legal contestations should have run their course. But the court order contravening Ohio state law was not issued until eight days after that. Absent documentation of the date[s] of the destruction, this assertion (the bolded portion) still contains a non-zero component of conjecture. To the extent to which you insist that the conjectural component is zero (or of a value so small as to be unworthy of concern), you will find your disagreement with several here to be irreconcilable.
The component is not zero; it is undetermined. That is why I keep requesting evidence, so as to make a reasonable estimate of the amount.

And I keep pointing out that the conjecture that this was done to cover-up a massive conspiracy that actually threw the election to Bush approaches unity as a limit.

I repeat - on what evidence do you base your conjecture that there was a criminal conspiracy and voter fraud in Ohio?

And, if you are just trying to be sure there wasn't, and have no partisan basis for your investigation, why are the Usual Suspects concerned solely and only in a state that Bush won? I hear nothing about election challenges in any blue state. If you are so concerned with a fair vote, why don't you sue somebody in Illinois? Why is voter fraud so important in Ohio, but not in Washington and Mississippi? (http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=18362)

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Adn I ask again, why was it needful that the records be destroyed? You keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with it, ok, what's right with it? Even if a suspicion is unfounded, wouldn't you want clear sunlight to prevail? Since you are entirely convinced that there is no risk involved, why would you want the records destroyed? Except for all that mold, and stuff....

[Sarahfeena]

Adn I ask again, why was it needful that the records be destroyed? You keep insisting that there's nothing wrong with it, ok, what's right with it? Even if a suspicion is unfounded, wouldn't you want clear sunlight to prevail? Since you are entirely convinced that there is no risk involved, why would you want the records destroyed? Except for all that mold, and stuff.... Speaking on a broader level than just Ohio, Is it typical that voting records are destroyed after a certain period of time, or is it typical that they are retained indefinitely? And if the former, do you believe records should be retained indefinitely? If not, what do you think is a reasonable period of time?

[Sarahfeena]

Oh, and I have one more question. Let's say that a business has a legal obligation to hold onto tax records for 10 years (I'm making this up). The business has a policy that every year on April 16, they purge the record that just had its 10th birthday. Would you assume that the business was trying to hide something? Or do you think that they may have some other explanation for why they might have such a policy?

[kaylasdad99]

I repeat - on what evidence do you base your conjecture that there was a criminal conspiracy and voter fraud in Ohio?You disappoint me, Shodan; you're usually more careful than this.

I offered no conjecture as to the presence or absence of a criminal conspiracy and voter fraud in Ohio, or anywhere else. That I have not chosen to join you in your derision of such conjectures as have been offered by others does not give you the right to assume that I have supported them.

I will say, that (IMHO*) being Republicans makes such people worthy of extra scrutiny by default, and I am rarely sorry to have the opportunity to watch them squirm under it. :p


*It is also the case that MHO is so often coincident with objective fact, that I hardly ever feel the need to mention that an assertion is MHO. :p :p

[Shodan]

I offered no conjecture as to the presence or absence of a criminal conspiracy and voter fraud in Ohio, or anywhere else. That I have not chosen to join you in your derision of such conjectures as have been offered by others does not give you the right to assume that I have supported them.

I will say, that (IMHO*) being Republicans makes such people worthy of extra scrutiny by default, and I am rarely sorry to have the opportunity to watch them squirm under it. :p
IOW, as far as the voting in Ohio goes, you are a troll.

You're not even pretending that you think there might be some criminal activity. You just want to cause trouble for the other party.

I rather suspect that your motives are the same as those filing the lawsuit. Mere partisanship, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and a concern for fairness plays no part.

No surprise there.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

..I rather suspect that your motives are the same as those filing the lawsuit. Mere partisanship, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and a concern for fairness plays no part...
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shodan does!

[elucidator]

...If not, what do you think is a reasonable period of time?
The amount of time, reasonable or no, isn't the point. If there is controversy over the issue, the records should be retained until such time as they are thoroughly examined. Any such suspicions ought to be intolerable, in a democracy there is nothing so important as a fair election. Absent a compelling reason, it raises more doubts than it clarifies. Who benefits?

...Oh, and I have one more question. Let's say that a business has a legal obligation to hold onto tax records for 10 years (I'm making this up). The business has a policy that every year on April 16, they purge the record that just had its 10th birthday. Would you assume that the business was trying to hide something? Or do you think that they may have some other explanation for why they might have such a policy?....
I have no idea why you think this is relevent. Its not about legality, its about our ability to have faith and trust in our elections.

[Evil Captor]

I have no idea why you think this is relevent. Its not about legality, its about our ability to have faith and trust in our elections.

If you can't trust our elected officials who can you trust? Especially if they's Republicans!

[elucidator]

They's people, and they's not to be trusted, Pubbie, Dem, Indy or Libby. The temptations of power are too great.

[kaylasdad99]

IOW, as far as the voting in Ohio goes, you are a troll.

You're not even pretending that you think there might be some criminal activity. You just want to cause trouble for the other party.

I rather suspect that your motives are the same as those filing the lawsuit. Mere partisanship, as I have mentioned elsewhere, and a concern for fairness plays no part.

No surprise there.

Regards,
ShodanBite me. :)

Up to now, I have four posts in this thread. Here's one that's a joke. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8837721&postcount=15)

This one is an observation that a specific piece of documentation appears to be unavailable, and questions whether such unavailability is unusual. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8855504&postcount=55)

Here, I point out that such unavailability renders a specific portion of one of your assertions less than 100% certain, and that the significance of such such uncertainty will remain a point of disagreement between you and others [until the uncertainty itself is eliminated]. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8864706&postcount=97)

Here, I decline to accept the mantle of conjecture-offerer that you tried to place upon me. I also proclaim (by implication) my dislike of Republicans, and my general equanimity with the prospect of their discomfiture. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8866293&postcount=109)

It is difficult to see how the preceding can be fairly extrapolated to a desire on my part to cause anything at all, any more than your posts amount to effective action to prevent trouble for the [Republican] party. A willingness to watch it unfold, sure, and a desire to obtain information that will enable me to gauge the likelihood of such trouble unfolding.

As for my motivation, it is the same as my motivation for everything I do here: my own entertainment.

[Blalron]

So the fact that there was a law stipulating a minimum period for which vote records should be retained makes you suspicious that a conspiracy has been at work?

Frankly, I don't even care anymore about whether a conspiracy happened. If it did, those who did it have effectively covered their tracks. I just want to prevent any possible vote stealing from happening again. A democracy can't function effectively if the results are constantly being called into question.

This isn't just a matter of Democrats whining about losing either. Look at the recent election for Washington Governor... a Democrat won by the very narrowest of margins. The Federal Prosecutor in that particular district was asked by his superiors to drum up some prosecutions for "voter fraud"... he refused, believing there wasn't any credible evidence... that prosecutor was subsequently fired. Sour grapes indeed. I'd love for there to be a bipartisan dialogue about how to better improve our electoral system. But it just seems like we're talking AT each other instead of with each other. And it makes me sad.

[elucidator]

Well, someday somebody will do an interesting study, about how all those people who lied to the exit pollers. I guess I can understand it, if I had voted for Bush I sure as hell wouldn't admit it. Its kinda like one of those multiplex movie theaters, somebody asks you coming out, what you saw, you say that new movie about Jane Austen, not Sorority Stewardess Sluts Do Dallas....

[dropzone]

You pinkos in Minnesota get to see those things in your local multiplexes. Here, all they're showing is Underdog.

BTW, my church just showed a movie, Sweet Land, in which the pastor was appalled, in 1920 or so Minnesota, that the heroine was a registered Socialist. This, in a state where the Democratic Party exists only as the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Maybe if the pastor had explained to her the shades of pink differences between the four cadres....