The article claims that a recount would most likely show that Kerry won. Is there anything to it? Someone is bound to start a thread about it sooner or later so it may as well be me. I’m not sure what to think of this. It’s going to be all over the net soon enough. Are Kerry or the Democratic party the only ones who can sue for a recount? Can private individuals or groups do so? And if they do, will the Supremes shut it down? Can the country go through something like this again? Should we?
The man conceded, the point is moot.
Two things:
- They are going to count the provisional ballots. So that doesn’t neead a recount.
- You can’t assume that most spoiled ballots are just hanging chads. If someone votes for two candidates or doesn’t vote for any, that’s spoiled and uncountable.
Wouldn’t matter. Absentee ballots coming in are about to swing Wisconsin to Bush, so he would have won without Ohio anyway.
If after what happened in Florida, you still cannot do a punch card ballot correctly then maybe your vote shouldn’t be counted.
Actually, a concession has no legal standing. Hypothetically, if there were a recound and if Kerry won (both are big ifs), then the electoral college would vote for him. If he refused the position at that point than I suppose it would follow the legal line of succession with Edwards given the opportunity if he wants it.
Well, let’s just first start here with the article
If you go onto CNN today and look at Ohio You’ll notice that Bush took the men 53/47 and the women were 50/50.
Unless CNN is changing their exit poll data to match up with the election, we can state that his entire premise is flawed.
So then your position is that voting is some kind of skills challenge? What is your reasoning for that?
The other point being that the entirety of the article is based on one assumption: exit polling data was perfectly accurate. There was no margin of error, everyone sampled was the exact perfection of the sample they were supposed to represent, and absolutely no one lied about who they voted for.
If Ohio had any chance of being overturned, I doubt Kerry and the Democratic leadership would have shrugged and said, “Ah, well, it’s too hard. Let’s just give up.”
How does one recount a Diebold machine with no paper trail, anyhow? :dubious:
Hmm. You’re correct. I wonder how he got that so wrong?
Cite?
If we’re talking about Ohio, I believe that Diebold machines are not used in Ohio. Most precincts in Ohio still use punch cards.
He’s talking about punch cards. But the whole thing may be moot. Cheesesteak has pointed out the major flaw in his argument.
Exit polls aren’t even entirely randomly selected samples. They cannot be trusted to be accurate. They never HAVE been entirely accurate.
30% of Ohio used Diebolds, I read at some reputable news site (can’t find it again right now). Even if they can recount the parts of the state that have punch cards, it’s ridiculous to ignore the parts that can’t - in fact, I believe the Supreme Court had something to say about equal protection under the law a few years ago. Also, many states have automatic recounts if the vote is within .X% - what does that mean for a place where all you have is the results of the Diebold machines?
I e-mailed the Tom Paine site to ask about the discrepancy, with a link to the CNN exit poll for Ohio. We’ll see if anybody responds.
Agreed.
I don’t want to hijack my thread into a discussion about people’s ability to punch cards (and I’m sure that it was already discussed to death in 2000) but I’m really dismayed to see two people, you and Gangster Octopus, that agree with this elitist sentiment. Do you really believe that voting should be seen as some sort of test of the voter’s ability to punch a hole in a card? Punchcards should be done away with completely but, if they are used and the election is close, then they should be recounted and examined manually. Do you have any relatives with arthritis or some kind of movement or eyesight problem? Do you sincerely believe that this should disqualify them from voting? If so, then I just don’t know what to say to you.
Apparently the early exit polls, which were released around noon for some reason, showed Kerry winning, but the late exit polls showed him losing, by about the same margin as the actual vote totals.
I’ve seen two possible explanations, which are related:
-
Democrats voted earlier than Republicans, perhaps because they really wanted to get rid of Bush.
-
The release of the early exit polls galvanized Republicans into voting.
Ed
I guess that would explain it then. Do you have a cite for that?