What about that "kind" of vote, that I outlined (above) from the NW Cable Channel, regarding the election board, which rejected valid votes? Now, that's one thing I've got a question about.
It's one thing to reject bogus, bad and invalid votes (and I agree with that), but it's quite another to be rejecting perfectly valid ones. I say that, because then I might find (one day) my vote on the "rejecting end" of that process.
Regards,
Star Traveler
The "kind" of vote you are talking about is highly suspect. They have had months to find these votes and now, suddenly, when it looks like the Dem will lose, they find 561 ballots that were rejected because of signatures or so they say. The offical that claims he found his ballot among the others that were refected just happens to be, wait for it, a Democrat!!! Wow, isn't that strange. These votes should be thrown out under the ruling the court made today because they are votes that were not previously counted and were initially rejected. There are rules and laws for bringing suit after the count to try to legitimize these ballots. They should not be counted and if the election board that is to decide whether they be counted or not was impartial they would not be. Hopefully the courts will do something about this also.
How do you know these votes were valid? They were rejected by both Dems and Gops, without anyone knowing which candidate (if either) was selected on the ballot.
The votes weren't valid according to BoE standards, and the only reason to try to change the decision is because some people don't like the result. That's the real perversion of our electoral system.