Arnbeck also withdrew Moss V Moyer.
He does not say why. Nothing to do with Presidential certification.
Maybe because his primary piece of evidence was that people voted split tickets.
In the DUmmie mindset, it is impossible for someone to vote for a republican candidate and a democrat candidate on the same ballot.
Huh? So he was arguing that all split ticket ballots must be awarded to the Dem candidate.
DUmmie logic and legal prowess at its finest.
=8-]
"So he was arguing that all split ticket ballots must be awarded to the Dem candidate"
Huh? Are you telling me that Arnbeck actually took that argument into a court room?
You're joking. He's gotta be a DU member.
He does not say why. Nothing to do with Presidential certification.
Maybe because his primary piece of evidence was that people voted split tickets.
In the DUmmie mindset, it is impossible for someone to vote for a republican candidate and a democrat candidate on the same ballot.
Huh? So he was arguing that all split ticket ballots must be awarded to the Dem candidate.
DUmmie logic and legal prowess at its finest.
According to their "logic" that candidates at the top of the ticket must get the same number or more votes than someone of their own party lower on the ticket (never mind the fact that it may be a nonpartisan race so many voters would not know who was the D and who was the R) or else something fishy is going on, then--
Bush should have won OH by at least 64% since Senator Voinovich got that amount. Does this mean that Kerry stole 13%? /sarcasm.
And going by this ludicrous logic, there are a whole bunch of states that either Bush or Kerry "should" have won since their lower-party member candidates got more votes than they did.