Posted on 12/16/2004 11:59:33 AM PST by Publius
You log on and post to DU just to get material for your Blog.
You hype your blog in your tagline
Please forgive us if we think you are just here to get material and hits to your blog.
No, I admitted I was at DU a lot.
What is your user id ?
I have none, having been banned four times. The most recent time was for a post (since deleted) in this thread, in which the DUers took offense to this post on my blog. Go read it, then come back here and abjectly apologize for calling me a shill. I'll forgive you; you seem to have an uncontrollable tendency to prematurely accuse people of offenses.
The answer to the first part of your question -- "how many recounts is enough" -- is "as many as are provided by law". In this state, one or two: a candidate-initiated (and paid-for) hand recount, and a possible mandatory machine recount if the margin is within a certain narrow range. The answer to the second part of your question -- "why should election rules be changed" -- is "they shouldn't be". And they haven't been. RCW 29A.60.210 provides:
Whenever the canvassing board finds that there is an apparent discrepancy or an inconsistency in the returns of a primary or election, the board may recanvass the ballots or voting devices in any precincts of the county.
...and always has. If ballots have been erroneously disqualified, the law permits and has always permitted the canvassing boards to allow them.
I've posted on DU exactly three times. Not one of them was to get material for my blog. The first was before I'd even started my blog. The second was to correct a poster who said that the turkey with which President Bush was photographed in Iraq on Thanksgiving 2003 was plastic. And the third was in response to that thread where I was attacked and wanted to fight back.
You hype your blog in your tagline
Yes, I do.
Please forgive us if we think you are just here to get material and hits to your blog.
Of course I forgive you. You err, but forgiveness is divine.
Posted three times but banned four times?
what bull**it, that they find unsecured ballots sitting in a bin that weren't returned on election night. Total unbelievable cr**.
Yes, I was banned once before I even had a chance to post. For my second post, I knew I'd be banned (for daring to post something non-negative about the President), so I chose the name "GoneIn60Seconds". My third banning, I picked "GoneIn59Seconds" but was banned before I had the chance to post... which was literally within one minute. The mods much watch the registrations very closely.
For my fourth banning (and third post) I learned my lesson and typed my response in Notepad before I registered. I was still banned within a minute, but managed to post before the banning, and the post actually survived for a couple of hours before it was deleted.
It would seem that a lawsuit that the special scrutiny that the King county ballots get would violate the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment. Unless ALL ballots in the WHOLE state are treated with the same scrutiny, then you cannot give the ballots of one or two counties special consideration because you believe that doing so will swing the race your way.
We went over this in 2000 in Florida and the Supreme Court has already shown this to be true.
My post above on this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1302888/posts?page=209#209
Maybe we should have a contest for the fastest ban from DU.
"How many recounts are there going to be?"
"State law allows for only two recounts and the candidates must live with the result. State law does not, however, bar additional vote counts if one candidate or party contests the election and a judge orders another count."
Kinda goes against what we've been hearing about absolutely only two recounts.
It looks like yesterday's supreme court ruling had zero impact.
They haven't descended yet.
That little squirrel picture people post here has a better set than the party.
Yes, in theory a judge could order another count. Also in theory, a judge could order the candidates to wear propellor beanies and sing "Oh, Susannah" while hopping on one foot. Both orders, however, would be completely extralegal.
Your use of [sic] is patronizing, condescending and incorrect. The preposition "on" is the proper one in this context.
I was just wondering where they got this info., if it is not a real possibility.
If the candidates were before a Judge on charges -" wearing propeller beanies and singing "Oh, Susannah" while hopping on one foot" might not be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
He left off the second sentence in his post. Note the part that says "before the last day to certify the primary or election."
I do believe that the Democrats are not acting as honestly as the Republicans in the election; however, I agree with the standard of proof and I know you're not a shill for the Dems.
There's an additional point here, though. Regardless of innocence or guilt, it is bad practice to include ballots that turn up later--after observers had the chance to confirm the process--with a broken chain of custody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.