Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

[BBond]

Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

WASHINGTON - November 15 - There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.

On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party?s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.

?Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,? said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

?The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,? said Bobier.

Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.

The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens? groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.

 

[b0mbrman]

Heh heh. Cobb's mad because he thinks he got seven votes instead of six...

Actually, cheers to him for taking the bullet Kerry can't. Not a knock against Kerry of course, the appearances would just be political suicide.

 

[BBond]

The number of votes Cobb received is a moot point.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount.

 

[Michael]

BBond - I noticed that you're dodging the "I smell a rat" thread and haven't answered my last question.

As for the recount - if they can pay for it, more power to them. Voting is important and the results should be checked. I don't think that the 150K+ difference will go away, but nothing wrong with a recount.

Michael

 

[tnitsuj]

they can't possibly think they are going to change the vote 150K+ do they?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BBond
The number of votes Cobb received is a moot point.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount.

It was a lame attempt at a joke

"cheers to him for taking the bullet Kerry can't" alludes to the fact that only a candidate can call for a recount.

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
they can't possibly think they are going to change the vote 150K+ do they?

If it was just a miscount, no. I think they're hoping to uncover some type of fraud.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I doubt the difference in vote count will change all that much, but I do nevertheless feel it's a good thing if only for assuaging fears about vote count accuracy in the future.

 

[judasmachine]

does it matter? you Kerryites want to see if he was defeated fairly, you Bushites want to see if he was elected fairly. No harm, no foul.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
does it matter? you Kerryites want to see if he was defeated fairly, you Bushites want to see if he was elected fairly. No harm, no foul.

It does matter. In a true democracy free, fair elections wouldn't require a recount.

 

[XZeroII]

Lets just hope BOTH sides are investigated. We already know that both sides engaged in illegal and questionable activities.


Personally, I don't like recounts. If it were like a 1,000 vote difference (or even 5,000), then we should probably check things out. But with the spread here, the only thing you can do is divide the country. They are going to turn up voter fraud (I guarentee it) and it's going to cause squabbling. Nothing good can possibly come from this because we all know that the green party leans left and are looking for fraud by republicans. We all know that they will ignore left fraud.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Lets just hope BOTH sides are investigated. We already know that both sides engaged in illegal and questionable activities.


Personally, I don't like recounts. If it were like a 1,000 vote difference (or even 5,000), then we should probably check things out. But with the spread here, the only thing you can do is divide the country. They are going to turn up voter fraud (I guarentee it) and it's going to cause squabbling. Nothing good can possibly come from this because we all know that the green party leans left and are looking for fraud by republicans. We all know that they will ignore left fraud.

Nice of you to speak for everyone.

Please don't include me in what we all know.

 

[LunarRay]

One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting. This will help Bush eliminate division. So long as someone can point to some obscure village and say that there were forty votes tallied and only twenty seven registered to vote we'll have the old.. "IF it can happen there how do we know it didn't happen everywhere in Ohio". Let them count and settle the issue.. I'm all for it.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting. This will help Bush eliminate division. So long as someone can point to some obscure village and say that there were forty votes tallied and only twenty seven registered to vote we'll have the old.. "IF it can happen there how do we know it didn't happen everywhere in Ohio". Let them count and settle the issue.. I'm all for it.

:thumbsup:

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting. This will help Bush eliminate division. So long as someone can point to some obscure village and say that there were forty votes tallied and only twenty seven registered to vote we'll have the old.. "IF it can happen there how do we know it didn't happen everywhere in Ohio". Let them count and settle the issue.. I'm all for it.

:thumbsup:

This is all I was saying. Let's just do it, and get it over with. I give it 100 to 1 odds that it will change a damn thing anyway.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting.

How many times were the voted counted in 2000 Florida? Now google: "bush stole the election". Count the votes till you turn blue in the face, but don't talk about putting the liberally contrived issue to rest, cause it aint going to happen in your lifetime.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting.

How many times were the voted counted in 2000 Florida? Now google: "bush stole the election". Count the votes till you turn blue in the face, but don't talk about putting the liberally contrived issue to rest, cause it aint going to happen in your lifetime.

The votes were counted zero times in Florida in 2000. The Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the count.

What is the problem with counting votes to assure accuracy when there are documented occurences of problems? And why do you have to refer to this as a "liberally contrived issue"? It's a voting rights issue.

Ohio voters tell of Election Day troubles at hearing

Sunday, November 14, 2004
Reginald Fields
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus

Tales of waiting more than five hours to vote, voter intimidation, under-trained polling-station workers and too few or broken voting machines largely in urban or heavily minority areas were retold Saturday at a public hearing organized by voter-rights groups.

For three hours, burdened voters, one after another, offered sworn testimony about Election Day voter suppression and irregularities that they believe are threatening democracy.

The hearing, sponsored by the Election Protection Coalition, was to collect testimony of voting troubles that might be used to seek legislative changes to Ohio's election process.

The organizers chose Ohio because it was a swing state in the presidential election as well as the site of numerous claims of election fraud and voter disenfranchisement.

"I think a lot of us had a sense that something had deeply went wrong on Nov. 2 and it had to do with the election process and procedures in place that were unacceptable," said Amy Kaplan, one of the hearing's coordinators.

Kaplan said the hearing gave everyday citizens a chance to have their concerns placed into public record.

Both a written and video report on the hearing will be provided to anyone who wants a copy, especially state lawmakers who are considering mandating Election Day changes, Kaplan said.

Many of the voters who testified were clearly Democrats who wonder if their losing presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, was able to draw all the votes that were intended for him.

"I call on Sen. Kerry to un-concede until there is a full count of the votes," said Werner Lange of Trumbull County, who claimed that polling places in his Northeast Ohio neighborhood had half the number of voting machines that were needed.

"This caused a bottleneck at polling stations, and many people left without voting," he said.

Others said they were testifying not on political grounds but out of concern for a suspicious election system that should be above reproach.

Harvey Wasserman of Bexley said he tried to vote absentee with the same home address he has used for 18 years but was told he couldn't because his absentee application had the wrong address.

"But the notice telling me I had the wrong address arrived at the right address," he said. "I wonder, how many of these absentee ballots were rejected for no good reason?

"My concern is not out of the outcome of the election," Wasserman said, "but that this could go on and an election could be stolen. And we simply can't have that in a democracy."

 

[b0mbrman]

Works for me...

Link to donate to the recount effort via the Green Party candidate
Link to donate to the recount effort via the Libertarian Party candidate

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting.

How many times were the voted counted in 2000 Florida? Now google: "bush stole the election". Count the votes till you turn blue in the face, but don't talk about putting the liberally contrived issue to rest, cause it aint going to happen in your lifetime.

The votes were counted zero times in Florida in 2000.

:roll: I rest my case.

 

[conjur]

Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: LunarRay
One sure way to put to rest the issue is to recount the votes and insure the accuracy of the voting.

How many times were the voted counted in 2000 Florida? Now google: "bush stole the election". Count the votes till you turn blue in the face, but don't talk about putting the liberally contrived issue to rest, cause it aint going to happen in your lifetime.

Well I'd hope it would last a bit longer..

The larger point is in dealing with what on the surface seems incredible.. the greater votes than registered voters... I know there are cross district issues and all that but some folks don't look to that. They won't be satisfied till they can see that what may be the result is the result and a great majority will hush up when a recount is certified under the watchful eyes of the party opposite.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BBond
Recount in Ohio A Sure Thing

WASHINGTON - November 15 - There will be a recount of the presidential vote in Ohio.

On Thursday, David Cobb, the Green Party?s 2004 presidential candidate, announced his intention to seek a recount of the vote in Ohio. Since the required fee for a statewide recount is $113,600, the only question was whether that money could be raised in time to meet the filing deadline. That question has been answered.

?Thanks to the thousands of people who have contributed to this effort, we can say with certainty that there will be a recount in Ohio,? said Blair Bobier, Media Director for the Cobb-LaMarche campaign.

?The grassroots support for the recount has been astounding. The donations have come in fast and furiously, with the vast majority in the $10-$50 range, allowing us to meet our goal for the first phase of the recount effort in only four days,? said Bobier.

Bobier said the campaign is still raising money for the next phase of the recount effort which will be recruiting, training and mobilizing volunteers to monitor the actual recount.

The Ohio presidential election was marred by numerous press and independent reports of mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines and the targeted disenfranchisement of African American voters. A number of citizens? groups and voting rights organizations are holding the second of two hearings today in Columbus, Ohio, to take testimony from voters, poll watchers and election experts about problems with the Ohio vote. The hearing, from 6-9 p.m., will be held at the Courthouse, meeting room A, 373 S. High St., in Columbus. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign will be represented at the hearing by campaign manager Lynne Serpe.

A demand for a recount in Ohio can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was either a certified write-in candidate or on the ballot in that state. Both Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik will be demanding a recount. No other candidate has stated an intention to seek a recount and no other citizen or organization would have legal standing to do so in Ohio. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is still exploring the possibility of seeking recounts in other states but no decision has been made yet.

If they couldn't buy the election with the millions they have already spent, how is another 114K going to help? Glad they aren't wasting my money!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..

And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick.

 

[LordNoob]

We should just do what they do in India and use indelible markers. Screw electronic voting.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: conjur
Good to see a recount will be done.

Wonder how that will be performed in the Diebold precincts.

I think Florida needs one too. I find the statical anomaly bothersome. Not that it may not be accurate but that what ought to be statistically one way turns out the opposite.. The sample size was adequate for the population and the sampling was scientifically performed... least ways to my understanding... the result should not have been what occured. I think they used a 95% confidence level. And the machine thingi makes for a problematic recount so I don't know how that will turn out but there is another problem that needs sorting out... Like the place in Ohio..

And the diversionary trick there to NOT use the Diebold counties but, rather, the optical scanner counties that have been reliable in the past. Very sneaky trick.

The one way to tell if the electronic paper trailless voting system has reflected the true vote of the people is to look to the exit polls. If I have my facts correct, the electronic voting areas where Bush was leading in both the exit polls and the actual tally contrasted with areas that had Bush leading in the tally but losing big time in the exit polls reflects an anomaly that is beyond troublesome because those areas are democratic usually or the current sampling indicates they went Kerry instead of how they voted in '00. (some were not able to vote in '00 due to 'issues')

But, Conjur, how do they count or recount what ain't there to be recounted?
An election is suppose to be 'transparent' and electronic voting is about as impermeable to light as can be, I think.