I thought Allen was all about “mov[ing] American forward” once the ballot hit the box, or something like that. I mean, I’m sure he’s far too principled to flip-flop on his democratic philosophy.
Considering that Allen has reportedly seen the Senate as merely a stepping-stone to the Presidency, I have to wonder if fighting it out is really worth the effort. Might be easier to gracefully concede, spend a few years quietly licking his wounds, then come back in '08 or '12 with a new noose…
For the provisional ballots. Those are the ballots cast by people who lacked identification or whose eligibility to vote was challenged by an election monitor. As the site says:
What’s taking them so long to announce a winner, anyway? Is there some backwater in southern Virginia that’s counting ballots by hand and running the numbers to Richmond by mule?
Well, keep in mind that for one thing, there are a lot of districts in Virginia, and it’s a very close race. These two put together mean that it will take a long time to reach (say) 75% votes in, and that there won’t be a clear victor early on. I think it takes roughly comparable amounts of time to count the votes in numerically similar districs in different states, but other races can be called with a relatively small percentage of the votes tallied.
I personally think there should be a recount, simply because the difference between Webb’s and Allen’s totals is so small compared to the total number of votes; in case you didn’t know, I’m a Democrat, so this is not a partisan desire.
Well, 100% of precints have reported from all but one county.
On another front, I read that Virginia is required by law to do a recount if the losing candidate requests it (with a race this close), but there will be no way to recount some areas that used electronic voting machines with no paper trail. Viva Democracy!
That was before they started counting absentee and provisional ballots. There are now 135 precincts that have yet to report their results (unofficial numbers from here); unfortunately, I am unable to find how many ballots of either type will be counted.
Wouldn’t, in that case, the recount consist of making sure that the numbers of votes cast for each candidate on each machine were transcribed accurately, and that there were no mistakes in adding the number of votes on each machine?
Back in 2000, when the Florida recounts were going on, I said “the most important thing is to count as accurately as possible. Recounts should go on for as long as is necessary to count the votes in the most accurate way possible.” Of course, at the time, that opinion aligned nicely with my political best interest, as I was pro-Gore and anti-Bush.
Now, my political best interest is exactly reversed, and I still think recounts should go on as long as possible in order to get as accurate a count as possible.
Does anyone who was in favor of stopping the recounts then want to step forward and endorse stopping the recounts now?
Well, the recounts haven’t started yet, so they can’t be stopped.
Here are the standards for recounts in Virginia, btw…in PDF
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Policy/RecountStardsRevisedNov_28_2005_FINAL.pdf
Here are the Appendicies, also in PDF
http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/documents/Policy/Recount_Stards_Appendices_B_C.pdf
Put me in the group that wants this recount to happen if Allen wants it, and for them to take as long as they need. Just get it right in the end.
Well, it’s in the law right? It’s less than half a percent, so the state has to cough it up, right? What’s the issue? It’s Allen’s call. If he wants it, he’s entitled to it.
Sure. Me. If there’s a mandatory recount, fine. After that, Allen should graciously admit defeat, congratulate the winner, and get on with his life.
One last positive thing the Republicans could do at the end of their train-wreck of a tenure would be to resist the temptation to ‘lawyer up’ and fight this election tooth-and-nail in the courts. It’s getting out of hand. Democracy only works when people have faith in the process, and the Democrats have done everything they could to undermine that faith. From accusations of vote tampering and intimidation, conspiracies over the evil Diebold machines (I wonder why the Republicans lost, if they control the all-powerful Diebold king-maker?), and claims that every close election they’ve lost was ‘stolen’, the Democrats have done significant damage to the machinery of democracy. The Republicans can help steer the tone back in a more productive direction.
His wounds are pretty serious – three months ago, he was going to cruise to an easy reelection, and then he screwed it up and cost the Republicans the Senate. No way he comes back for 2008, and I don’t see much chance of him coming back ever.
AP says it’s a done deal. FWIW.
Yeah, shame on those mean politicians undermining public trust by pointing out when people are breaking the law. :rolleyes:
Come on, I agree that nobody should be recklessly slinging around completely unfounded accusations of vote fraud, but you make it sound as though the Dems just made this issue up out of whole cloth. Nonsense. As has been pointed out in numerous recent threads, there have been several well-documented local problems with the integrity of the voting process in the past few elections.
I want the public and the government to keep their eyes open on this issue, not just bury it for fear of “undermining people’s faith in the process”. This ain’t fucking Santa Claus, this is the basic machinery of our democratic governance. What we need is empirical, evidence-based confidence that the system works, not mere “faith” born of refusal to question its working.
Sheesh, I thought you were supposed to be opposed to such paternalistic nanny-government attitudes.
I don’t see anything in the statute that says it’s mandatory, but I have zero problem with Allen asking for a recount, and as close as the vote was, he probably should do so. I’m not sure why lawyers or courts, or anything similar would be needed for this. Allen requests recount. State recounts and announces a winner. Seems simple. If Allen requests a full recount, and the Democrats try to stop it, I’ll be very pissed off.
Allen didn’t think a recount was such a hot idea back in 2000…
And I still wouldn’t have a problem with him asking for one now. He was wrong then, but we can do this correctly this time.
If the recount proves Allen the winner . . . what then? In terms of national government for the next two years, I mean. With a tied Senate, how often will Cheney invoke his right to cast a tiebreaker vote?