Posted on 11/08/2002 3:55:57 PM PST by commish
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:12:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
"On election night, when Don Siegelman thought he was ahead by 2,500 votes, he declared victory. He said, 'How sweet it is.'" He didn't say it was so close that we needed a recount. He didn't say there was uncertainty.
(Excerpt) Read more at montgomeryadvertiser.com ...
????????????
You need to reread my posts - I am 100% dead set against a recount - alabama law is clear on this.
I did agree with Sam that the premise of "why not allow a recount if you know you won", but I in no way said that there should be one. And SAM said the same thing once we pointed out what AL state law was.
And for the record - I am a died in the woll Southern Conservative in my 22nd year of service to the US Air Force. I am about as far from a NE Liberal R as you can get.
Yes, been a long time since I lived out there. I left the bay area in '73.
(Hey, it worked when algore was in Cheney's house!)
That some have not certified means that they have been told to stall- I've worked in heavily urbanized counting offices and in rural ones- ALL should be tallied and certified by sunrise after election day before the judges are even allowed to go home. There's only one reason to stall and avoid sealing those ballots and that is if someone wants to add more ballots and needs the time to pick out the names of voters who were registered but didn't show up to the polls, forge the sigs, and slip in the correct number of additional ballots.
In our case, back in Illinois, we were tallying ballots we knew had already been rigged. The classic sign of rigging back then was a late reporting precinct with pinholed ballots. But because the 'crime' had already taken place at the poll, there was nothing we could do until Illinois law was changed and pinholing was considered grounds for voiding a ballot. Up until then we were even REQUIRED to punch out pinholed chads, or select the chad nearest a poorly aimed pinhole, so the machine would accept them- otherwise the machine would reject those falsified votes. In effect, we were committing election fraud because the rats in power had written the law and had required us to count pinholed ballots (ballots stacked up and punched with a hatpin by some cheater). This is the same sort of criminal behavior allowed when a state permits pregnant chads and 3/4 chads to be tallied instead of sticking o a clear standard of a cleanly removed chad. It was frustrating for us because we knew what the rats were doing but had no power to stop it until the law was challenged and changed. Even now the law allows highly questionable ballots to be talied. If it didn't, Crook County might not be so crooked and secure a place for Rats.
Alabama has the sealed ballot system for a reason... so long as the boxes are delayed from being certified & sealed, they are vulnerable to fraud. They are not 'secure,' being wide open for any schmuck with a key to the closet to get in and rig if allowed the time to do it. That there are counties which still haven't certified indicates that someone is trying to give a tamperer some time for fraud.
I wonder if those counties happen to be ones with urbanized 'rat precincts.
If that can be done 67 times, in each of Alabama's couties, then the result is, whether it is called that or not, a "statewide" recount.
The problem here obviously is that the current Governor doesn't have sufficient facts to allege to get a recount even in Baldwin County itself.
Looks like the Alabama Governor goes in the Republican column. Somebody tell CNN that their reporting on this race is dead wrong.
Congressman Billybob
Why are you beating up on commish? He has said absolutely nothing here that wasn't in total support of Riley being the new governor. And I believe Riley should be the new governor too. I also believe that if there was a recount, Riley would still come out on top and he would be able to govern more effectively. Whether you like it or not, there is going to be a cloud over the election without a recount. I realize that the technical interpretation of Alabama law says that a "close election" does not meet the conditions of a mandatory recount. But unless Alabama law clearly states that even an optional recount is not allowed, I feel it is the right thing to do.
I believe that if Bush could survive a recount in Florida in one of the nastiest political climates that you could ever imagine, that Riley will come out smelling like a rose here too. And once a recount is done that shows Riley the winner (and why wouldn't it?), that Siegleman will have no choice but to tuck his tail between his legs and go away.
Do you realize that we have a situation in South Dakota where the Republican candidate for senator lost by 523 votes? Do you think he should just concede the election or do you think he should fight for a recount?
That is one of those "how dare they?" That blew my mind that someone said don't obey the law!
Right now I am following the situation in South Dakota in which the Republican (Hume) has apparently lost by 523 votes. But wait! Apparently some precincts have had more than 100% turnout. Apparently some fraud has occurred on Indian reservations (in which the FBI is investigating I understand). I would like nothing better than to see that voter fraud exposed in South Dakota and to see Hume claim the senate seat that is most likely to be his.
That is why I am on the side of a recount down in Alabama (if it is permissable by Alabama law). I know that we don't commit vote fraud on our side so a recount, provided that it is done properly, will almost certainly show Riley to be on top. In fact, in the process, perhaps some vote fraud will be discovered that was done on behalf of Siegleman.
I do not have full confidence in our elections and that is a shame. We must not ignore the problem anymore. Simply accepting the results and moving on is not going to fix the problem. We must roll up our sleeves and start restoring confidence in our elections again.
Actually, a close election is not a good reason for a recount (although some states call for it in that situation).
Think about it. So you have the initial count, and it says Candidate Jones beat Candidate Smith by 100 votes. So you say, "This was really close, let's do a recount." You do the recount -- and lo and behold, Candidate Smith now leads Candidate Jones by 50 votes.
But what reason is there to suppose that the second count was any more accurate than the first? The reality is that in a situation where the election is close enough that a recount might change the outcome, what that really tells you is that the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error. That means that it was sheer chance which candidate happens to be ahead each time you count -- and the 2nd count doesn't give you a better number, it just gives you a different number.
Or to put it another way, if you truly believe that you can count hundreds of thousands or millions of pieces of paper twice and get the same number both times, then a recount makes sense. Otherwise, it doesn't.
John Thume lost the senate race by 523 votes in South Dakota and I for one, hope he gets his recount there. And more importantly, I hope the vote fraud there is exposed and that people go to jail for it. There is too much ballot-stuffing and other nonsense going on (and ALL of it perpetrated by Democrats). We've got to put a stop to this nonsense and stop ignoring it.
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.