Given the evidence or lack thereof in this specific situation.
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?
Well, that certainly settles that! I had no idea they were all, like, moldy. And stuff.
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?
Regards,
Shodan
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?
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?
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. 
*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.
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
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shodan does!
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?
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!
They’s people, and they’s not to be trusted, Pubbie, Dem, Indy or Libby. The temptations of power are too great.
Bite me. 
Up to now, I have four posts in this thread. Here’s one that’s a joke.
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.
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.
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…
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…