Apparently the Greens and Libertarians are going to go where the Dems do not dare and request a recount in Ohio if they can raise the required fee through donations at their websites.
So, is this a good idea given the confusing election results? Or just more attention-grabbing?
Also, is this something only a third party could do without immediately being branded “sore losers”?
Well. 25 bucks for the sake of curiosity.
I chose to donate via Cobb versus Badnarik. I figure I’ll be getting a more interesting stream of junk mail by entering my personal information on the green site.
Well, I actually voted for Badnarik, but I don’t see that a recount in Ohio is going to be very informative. However, if they can raise the money (probably from disgruntled Dems still smarting over the election) then more power to them I say.
Myself I think I’ll keep my money and simply await developments. Besides, I’m ALREADY on the Libertarians mail lists since I did some volunteer work for them this summer. 
-XT
Gotta admit that I’m unsure of their motivations here. Are the leaders of the Green and Libertarian parties doing this to take a flyer on the slim chance that Ohio’s electoral votes can end up with Kerry?
Because if it’s not that I’m mystified. That one hell of a lot of money to devote to a principle for parties that ain’t exactly rolling in the dough.
Nonetheless…$50 to the Libertarians for me.
Well, if they are just going to spend the money on a recount, I think the motivation is good will and maybe a little PR.
Maybe they hope that if voting irregularities can be shown to have perhaps changed the outcome of the election again, we will actually get some voting reform. I’d like us to pick one method of voting, one method of determining if votes count, each vote to have a paper trail, all across the US. It’ll be cheaper and more fair.
Just how much does a recount cost?
The Cobb and Badnarik campaigns are in the process of raising the required fee, estimated at $113,000, for a complete recount in all 11,000 precincts in Ohio.
I’d like to see some changes too. I think the methods and regulations should be uniform and consistent across the board. But, on the other hand I also feel that now the election is over, let it be.
Interesting. This raises a fascinating Republican strategy question. If their analysis is that there’s, say, a 0.1% (one in a thousand) chance that the Ohio recount would change the result, do they buy some insurance by requesting a recount in Wisconsin? (Assuming it’s not too late, of course.)
(Kerry won WI by a smaller margin than Bush won OH, and if the WI recount changed the result in that state, a possible OH result switch wouldn’t matter.)
What is so confusing about ‘Bush won Ohio by 136,483 votes?’
What is confusing is that in any election not involving George W Bush, the exit polls were very close to the final vote tally. In elections involving George W Bush, exit polls were very close to the final vote tally except in battleground states and in those instances the shift between exit polls and final tallies is nearly universally in Bush’s favor and outside the range of statistical likelihood. If you believe this is pure chance, I’ve got some WMDs to sell you.
Ah, once again the ‘we trust polls more than certified votes’ routine. Carry on.
Well, exit polls are usually how the UN and such organizations try and monitor elections in other countries to detect corruption and such. So if their really is a large discrepancy in the exit polls, I’d say its worth looking into.
I’d be fairly certain that even if such discrepancies exist, they’re probably not due to some widespread vote rigging scheme, but just systematic problems with how the exit polls are conducted, or with how the certified votes are tallied. But whatever the problem, its worth investigating before the next election so that the system can continue to be improved.
Any differences in the recount is unlikely to give Kerry an extra 100,000 votes anyways, so I doubt that Cobb and Badnarik are hoping to overturn the election. But fixing problems with the current vote-counting system is worthwhile in and of itself.
I posted this link in another thread, but that thread might be dieing so thought I’d post it here too for you Bob.
Just a few quick things…read through the whole thing if you like to get more detail.
-XT
Even if the recount further shows Bush won, I think it has an additional benefit of keeping the issues that keep coming up each election on the front burner. I am certain that a recount will uncover more cases of foul ups and malfeasance. Not on a grand scale, but enough to remind the public and our elected officials that there still is a long way to go to fix the system.
I would assume first that the call by these two for a recount might have more to do with ballot inclusiveness/matching funds for these two parties in the state of Ohio than any great moral imperative to ensure a stable democracy laa de doo daa. Im not sure, but if the Libs and Greens got less than a certain percentage, they may stand to lose automatic ballot qualification in Ohio, forcing them to go the rounds and get signatures and all that in Ohio the next time. Thats probalby what the recount is for.
They’ve reached 1000 (well, as of last night they were 4k shy, so I suspect they’ve acheived their fundraising goal. Has anyone heard if they’ve taken any action yet?
I suspect the motivation is “Any press is good press.” ; that they see it as a way to get the {Libertarian | Green} party mentioned a little more on the nightly news.
But hey, I’m cynical that way.
Thank you xtisme (by the way, what does that username mean?). I’m digesting it and doing what research I can find time to do.