Rusty silver linings

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The courts aren't rewriting anything. That is what happened in 2000 with a bogus ruling that was so transparently bogus, the Court actually said the case would have no binding precedent.

Funny you should bring that up, considering that the Florida Supreme Court voted 4-1 to pretty much gut state law in 2000. No shock that the US Supremes told them 7-2 to knock it off.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The state is following the mantra of "count every legal vote." When that happens, your guy loses. Democracy sucks for Republicans. You can't buy your way out of everything.

You mean "count every vote, no matter what the law says."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Funny you should bring that up, considering that the Florida Supreme Court voted 4-1 to pretty much gut state law in 2000. No shock that the US Supremes told them 7-2 to knock it off.



You mean "count every vote, no matter what the law says."

Please show me where the law says legal votes shouldn't be counted. I eagerly await that finding.

As for the Bush v Gore ruling, you need to brush up. The Court reversed the Florida court not because they were "gutting state law," but because there wasn't adequate time to count the votes in a manner that would protect the equal rights of all citizens who voted (the constitutional deadline was December 12, although ironically, the count could have been completed by that time but for the stay ordered by the Court in order to decide the case). The 7-2 case you cite decided that there were equal protection issues with the recount process. The 5-4 case was about the proper remedy.

Given that such is not the problem here, the state is doing exactly what they ought to be doing- establishing uniform guidelines that ensure equal protection and counting all legal votes. Indeed, if Gore had pushed for the exact same recount requirements advocated by Franken, Gore would have won in 2000 as well (and the only argument given by the Court for denying him the election would have failed).

School is now over.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Please show me where the law says legal votes shouldn't be counted.

Rhetorical nonsense. You left out the part where Republicans want to kill babies.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Given that such is not the problem here, the state is doing exactly what they ought to be doing- establishing uniform guidelines that ensure equal protection and counting all legal votes.

Funny how "the state" only does that when a Democrat is down by a few hundred votes. No better time to set the rules than when the game is over and the loser is unhappy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Rhetorical nonsense. You left out the part where Republicans want to kill babies.

It isn't rhetorical nonsense. The votes they are counting are legal votes. Show me otherwise.

Funny how "the state" only does that when a Democrat is down by a few hundred votes. No better time to set the rules than when the game is over and the loser is unhappy.

Do you expect these kinds of issues to arise in a blowout? Note to Tex: in a blowout, nobody recounts ANY ballots. Obviously these issues only arise in close contests, and obviously these issues don't always favor the Democrat (again, please see 2000). Rational thought won't stop your silly ranting, though, so fire away.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't rhetorical nonsense. The votes they are counting are legal votes. Show me otherwise.

Do you expect these kinds of issues to arise in a blowout? Note to Tex: in a blowout, nobody recounts ANY ballots. Obviously these issues only arise in close contests, and obviously these issues don't always favor the Democrat (again, please see 2000). Rational thought won't stop your silly ranting, though, so fire away.

After the Las Vegas Bowl ended, Bronco should've thrown the red flag on the field and demanded a review of Arizona's 1st quarter non-fumble. BYU would be awarded 7 points.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

After the Las Vegas Bowl ended, Bronco should've thrown the red flag on the field and demanded a review of Arizona's 1st quarter non-fumble. BYU would be awarded 7 points.

You are making a fool of yourself. Perhaps you are unaware that many ballots are examined after the election in every state contest? You usually don't hear about it, primarily because any changes in the vote tally have no effect on the outcome of the race, but there are always issues to sort through, particularly with respect to absentee votes, provisional ballots, etc. Is that routine practice supposed to stop when the contest is close? That wouldn't make any sense at all, now would it? Of course, you also don't seem to realize that state law REQUIRES a recount when the contest is this close. Why would they do such a silly thing, you may wonder? Well, Tex, it is because of the imprecision of a machine count. They get close, but not exact. Knowing this, state law demands a recount of every vote when the contest is within a given margin. Would it make any sense at all to require a recount if it the contest must necessarily produce the same result? Obviously not.

Get a grip. Losing is about to become a bigger part of your future.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are making a fool of yourself. Perhaps you are unaware that many ballots are examined after the election in every state contest? You usually don't hear about it, primarily because any changes in the vote tally have no effect on the outcome of the race, but there are always issues to sort through, particularly with respect to absentee votes, provisional ballots, etc. Is that routine practice supposed to stop when the contest is close? That wouldn't make any sense at all, now would it? Of course, you also don't seem to realize that state law REQUIRES a recount when the contest is this close. Why would they do such a silly thing, you may wonder? Well, Tex, it is because of the imprecision of a machine count. They get close, but not exact. Knowing this, state law demands a recount of every vote when the contest is within a given margin. Would it make any sense at all to require a recount if it the contest must necessarily produce the same result? Obviously not.

*Yawn* I'm aware of all this, and insofar as it's provided for by state law, all is well. What I oppose is re-writing the rules after the election is over in the name of "counting every legal vote." It's a wonderful bumpersticker, which completely ignores the complexity of determining exactly what a legal vote is.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Get a grip. Losing is about to become a bigger part of your future.

Apparently I don't take these elections as personally as you do. Maybe I'm not the one who needs a "grip."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

*Yawn* I'm aware of all this, and insofar as it's provided for by state law, all is well. What I oppose is re-writing the rules after the election is over in the name of "counting every legal vote." It's a wonderful bumpersticker, which completely ignores the complexity of determining exactly what a legal vote is.



Apparently I don't take these elections as personally as you do. Maybe I'm not the one who needs a "grip."

Ah. Tex says MN is in violation of state law. It must be so.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah. Tex says ... It must be so.

Indeed.

[Tex]

Today Powerline's Scott Johnson critiques an alternative solution to the Minnesota recount problem. The main points of the post (including the proposed solution) are not as interesting to me as his reiteration of the inconsistent and extra-lawful way the recount has proceeded:

The recount has been transparent and orderly ... [I]t has neither reflected nor given rise to partisan rancor, although it may yet do so on the issue of allegedly "improperly rejected" absentee ballots. On this issue the Minnesota Superme Court has sought to improvise a solution that ... lacks any warrant in Minnesota law.

A friend of his who was personally involved in the process noted:

I watched the rules change through the process. The first changes appeared on day 1. At first counters were to count duplicate ballots; then originals; then a couple of days later, the two parties were to agree on which ballots to count: duplicates or originals. So the system was inconsistent from the beginning. ... Once the rules started changing, I lost confidence in the process.

When you change the rules after the game is over, you open the door for cheaters to steal the win.